Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Thanks, + note about editing

A big Thank you to everyone who has abided by my request to stop editing the B2N - GIB - KAB section. I don't want to have to protect the whole article, and of course the edit war was unacceptable. One editor, perhaps not aware of the circumstances (we've put a lot of text on this talk page the past couple of days, so it would be easy to miss!) has made several edits to that section. I have notified him directly of the Good Conduct editing ban to that section and requested he confine himself to discussion on the talk page until this is resolved, as the rest of you have. I have also requested he self-revert. If he does, nothing more to say here - if he does not, you may wish to examine and discuss those recent edits to the disputed section as well, but I ask you to keep focused on the discussion as it unfolds, and not introduce new details until we get to them. I promise I will ask, perhaps until you are all annoyed with me! If everything has been covered and settled to your satisfaction. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[1] Would you please put in bold your request at this talk page that no one edit the article? I can't spot it. I've never seen that sort of thing at an unprotected Wikipedia article, so I'm interested to see the justification for it. As my edits indicate,[2] I simply corrected unsourced material, and followed consensus at the talk page. No one has objected to the edits I made, but I would be glad to revert them if I can see a reasonable request at the talk page. That's where bolding would help. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you were (again) not paying attention, but I have added a note to the article in the section. I remind you that this article is under probation, and you are very close to being blocked or banned from this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was at 18:45. You added the note at 18:53. It would have been difficult for me to pay attention to something that had not happened yet.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One presumes, however, you are now aware of it, yes? You were either paying attention and saw it, or weren't and didn't, but you know about it now, yes?

btw, thanks for the self revert - much appreciated given that all the other editors here have been abding by the "No edit zone" and confining themselves to reaching a consensus here on the talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

KC, my comment above was at 18:45. You added the note to the article at 18:53. I was paying attention and did not see it, because it was not there. 18:53 is greater than 18:45.

Regarding these edits of mine, am I allowed to use the "edit requested" template? The edits seem unobjectionable, and no one has objected.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not claim, imply, or say you hadn't been paying attention, in which case your repetition of the timestamps might make sense. I said "perhaps, again" in reference to your missing the original request not to edit that section, here on the talk page, which I brought to your attention on your talk page which you removed,[3] along with other discussion there[4].

Editrequested is for protected pages. I have not protected this page, as you can see and as I keep telling you I am trying to avoid doing. Please note every other editor of this article is focused on working with others to resolve the issues with this section, and are not trying to force their way to the front of the line with their particular specific desired edits. Please learn from their good example, and wait. If you persist in taking up all of my time in replying to you and explaining what I've already explained on this talk page, I will ban you from this article. This is your last warning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that, unlike a fully protected article where an edit request is possible, no edit request is possible here to implement these edits? Also, I would advise you not to ban me out of pique for removing comments at my personal talk page. Thanks. I have reverted every article edit you asked me to revert. If you are now asking me to shut up or be banned, I decline your request.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No and no. If people ignore my request not to edit the section, then I will protect. At that point, editrequest will apply. Meanwhile, either help with the mediation above or go do something else. Your petulant insisting that your desired edits receive immediate attention, while every other editor is patiently working through the issues in the section provided, is what will get you banned if you continue. Be done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. My edits were intended to implement consensus and wrap this thing up, and there was nothing petulant about simply asking you if an article edit is possible. Now that you say it is completely impossible, I will go do something else. Thanks so much.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation that I might actually consider blocking or banning anyone from "pique" is a far, far better example of failing to AGF and NPA than anything I have said. I am not rising to your bait, but neither am I inclined to give you much more leeway here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "last warning for Ferrylodge" here at this talk page began by citing diffs from my personal talk page. My apologies if you were not using those personal talk page edits to criticize me. It was neither "petulant" nor bannable for me to request article edits that implement consensus. I do not wish to discuss this further, so take the last word if you like, KC.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, who mediates the mediators? ;-) Since the two of you have a slight history (as I recall), perhaps it would be better to have both sides just let this one go. Nobody needs to be banned, nor do we need to continue throwing TLA around to be constructive. If Ferrylodge wants to discuss edits, that should be fine (that's what the talk page is for, and we can do more than one thing at a time). And we should all remember that this isn't formal mediation. Now that Ferrylodge's edits have been reverted, let's move along. Ferrylodge, care to participate in the discussion above? --Ali'i 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The above is a good example of the battle that it has been since August of 2008 to get certain edits passed the security squadron of Palin supporters. Close to resolving via discussion--->make a drastic change--->discussion shifts to the newer edit--->the two discussions intertwine (causing confusion)--->focus shifts further afield by engaging fellow editors in personal rants over completely irrelevant side issues--->newer edit survives via tactics rather than quality or consensus.--Buster7 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The converse is fully true. And gasoline on a fire does not help. Collect (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't, guys. Buster, just to exonerate myself, GP and I had this discussion six months ago, and the history on talk his, mine and this talk page will attest to that. This was not a pressing BLP issue to me, and I frankly couldn't have cared less whether the subject won an election, so I told him I intended to revisit this bridge obfuscation and misinformation after the election wounds healed. Apparently, I misjudged how quickly such things heal! However, I do want you to know (as GP well does) that I have always taken exception to how this material was shoehorned into that section, and this is not some conspiracy or tag-team operation! I represent only myself and, I hope, the material in this BLP. Fcreid (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, have never doubted Fcreid's good faith. He and I just have a legitimate difference of opinion, and he's right that we've had it for some time. Fcreid has never, to my knowledge, made wholesale edits or deleted whole paragraphs without going to the talk page to discuss them first. The one or two editors that did that, in my view, caused virtually all of the problems that I will painstakingly try to rectify one by precious one. (This may take months, y'all, as I try to restore the section to some semblance of where it existed on Election Day. I intend to reintroduce each piece of deleted content one by one and put each up for discussion again. I realize we did all this before and came to difficult compromises that lasted through Election Day. But when a single editor deletes all our hard work without discussion, we apparently have no choice but to go through the entire painful process once again. Heck, even the warning in this section not to delete anything from this section without discussion on the talk page was deleted without discussion on the talk page!) This is the problem that I think Buster is getting at, and I think he's right. But I do not blame Fcreid for it.GreekParadise (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, GP. As always, you demonstrate that two people can disagree with almost polar opposite viewpoints but still be respectful of each other and the opinion itself. Like you, I've presented my arguments and leave it to the community to decide. I lose no sleep whatever's decided. Fcreid (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This thread, and my comment, is about Editor:Ferrylodge and some others not including Editor:Fcreid. While having differences with "the opposition" Editor:Fcreid at least remained cordial and had a logic to his offerings. I apologize for not being clear. @ Editor:Fcreid...I was there for your discussions with Editor:GP and I agree. You were a fair advocate for your position.--Buster7 (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged, Buster. I know it's frustrating to offer sourced content that others might disagree meets the criteria for inclusion in an article, but it's comforting to know we can debate that content on its merits in a professional way. Fcreid (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion about Ferrylodge's edits

• Note to all: Must I pull all the edits and tell you precisely how many bytes have been spent on this since FL made his edits a couple of days ago? Discussion on the disputed content has stalled completely, and all discussion has been on FL and his edits and so on. Cease. We're done with this for now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I suppose you're right, that further discussion about this is wrong here. Although I'm having a hard time seeing how this is not going to be discussed at dramaboard. --Ali'i 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does anyone have any objections to these edits? It seems to me that they could provide some closure here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object to these edits in that they attempt to supercede the whole of all editors that are abiding by KC's request.--Buster7 (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, if that is your only objection then there are no substantive objections, and we ought to edit the article accordingly. Incidentally, I have yet to see KC's request prior to my edits (in which she supposedly requested that no one edit the section of the article), despite my repeatedly asking that the request be pointed out.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin please implement the edits, since no one has objected to what they say? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could request that the article be fully protected, and subsequently the "edit requested" template could be used.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a substantive objection to your proposed edits -- the omission of the express reference to "Knik Arm Bridge". My reasons have been stated in the "Take two" subthread above. I also agree with much of what other editors have said on the same point. JamesMLane t c 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggested edits neither remove reference to Knik Arm Bridge, nor insert it.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Then let me clarify that I do not agree with your proposed version, which omits the reference; that I prefer the version referred to above, which states that the term "Bridge to Nowhere" is applied to the Gravina Island Bridge (or, more rarely, to the Knik Arm Bridge); and that your proposal therefore will not provide closure, which was your expressed hope. JamesMLane t c 18:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate for the first paragraph of this section to be completely uncited? The suggested edits would restore a cite that was in this article for many months (i.e. an AP article from 2007, via the NY Times). I've merely suggested to edit the first sentence of the section to conform with that reliable source.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My severe problem with one of Ferrylodge's edits (and I admit I'm not sure which one he is talking about) is the one that pretends that Congreess rescinded a controversial $200 million earmark for one bridge when it actually rescinded a controversial $400 million+ earmark for two bridges. I object because the statement is factually inaccurate.68.83.208.91 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Reuters (September 1, 2008), the earmark for the Gravina bridge was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge: "The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005."[5] The New York Times and Associated Press (September 23, 2007) said the same: "Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina Islands. Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark...."[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A Question is asked..."Are there any objections?"...an objection is lodged...and then completely ignored while the question is rephrased. Why ask?--Buster7 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferry lodge, I am banning you from this article and talk page for one week, as you have disregarded the injunction by me, seconded by other editors, to not derail the KAB discussion and instead have persistently eaten up time and bandwidth on your pet edits. I asked you to wait; I warned you; I issued a final warning; I explained and reiterated the rationale; and you're still taking up everyone's time and derailing a difficult discussion which everyone else on this page is working very hard on. I will post this also on Ferrylodge's talk page so there will be no question of his missing this notice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I found his input valuable here. Collect (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

He'll be back in a week. Unfortunately, he's been derailing a very productive discussion which is making progress towards resolving a serious dispute which has resulted in several edit wars. I have repeatedly asked and warned, and he has ignored those requests and warnings. IOW, he done it to himself. I suggest we focus on the B2N discussion - the only reason this article is not protected is because everyone (except FL) has been working so hard on resolving that, and respecting my request not to edit that section until this is resolved. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong here, KC. We can do more than one thing at a time. Si se puede. :-) Ferrylodge has been contributing to the discussion, and hasn't been edit warring. He self-reverted and came to talk. That's what he should have done, and that's what he did. He wasn't being disruptive. --Ali'i 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. You are also continuing to discuss this, which is further delaying working out the B2N section. I suggest you concentrate your efforts there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

KC, I agree with your goal of promoting the process of talk-page discussion to resolve disagreements and forestall edit wars. The problem is that any conversation we have in the next week, in Ferrylodge's absence, might have to be revisited after his return. If you conclude that a ban from the article is appropriate, I suggest that you limit it to the article but restore his access to the talk page. As an editor who has generally disagreed with Ferrylodge, I would be willing to take the chance that he would post here only about improving the article, as opposed to getting into a long digression about your actions. If he works on the talk page to improve the article, then his presence here will make the next week more productive. JamesMLane t c 14:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As Ferrylodge has made no such request, nor has he made such a commitment, and has instead redirected everyone's attention to his edits, disrupting the process, I see no reason to consider this at this time. If Ferrylodge chooses to make such a request, I will consider it. I do watch his talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ferrylodge part three

I'm serving as a mediator/mentor/whatever for Ferrylodge now, and he's no longer banned from this talk page. I switched his ban on editing the article itself to indef, pending discussion. I'd appreciate it if any and all concerned parties would speak frankly and collegially here. Ferrylodge has made more edits to this article than has any other person, so I'd like to see the ban lifted sooner rather than later. Costructive criticism is the best way to help a fellow Wikipedian improve himself :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Knik Arm Bridge - include or not

OK, in an attempt to get back to the topic fresh and new, I believe the only question we're trying to answer right now, (without delving into content at this time), is: should we include the KAB or not? I am right on the fence with my 'not' opinion because I still question its relevence to Palin and her career before and after the campaign, although I can see the arguement for, based on the need to clear up the confusion about which bridge is which. Zaereth (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know of no specific relevance to Palin. She clearly had no connection at all to it being made an earmark. The KAB was not generally publicized as being a BtoN, and it is clear furthermore that Palin did not regard it as a BtoN when she spoke of saying "no." Collect (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I support disambiguation of the moniker Bridge to Nowhere, as interested editors have presented legitimate (albeit rare) use of the term to describe KAB. In summary, KAB is also an Alaskan bridge project and was found contemporaneous reliable sources with the Gravina Island Bridge to Nowhere project of national fame. That makes a request for disambiguation reasonable, in my opinion. In contrast, I have seen no material that suggests Palin's direct involvement with KAB warrants further biographical discussion here. In her relatively brief tenure as Governor of Alaska, there are almost certainly a multitude of other projects where she had direct personal involvement that would make better use of that space. Fcreid (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

These are both good points. It could be argued that leaving it out is the best way to disassociate the two, (I find it interesting that other Wikipedia's articles, such as French and Italian, mention the GIB, but no mention of the KAB at all). I personally wouldn't count google hits as an accurate assessment of notability. It could be that the same ten people have googled it 1000 times, (now that's just an 'out there' example, but I hope it makes my point). But the fact is, it has been mentioned in the media, so I think it comes down to notability, ie: Is it a notable enough factor in her life that adding it will provide some relevent information about her, or will it merely be a bit of trivia, a sort of, Oh yeah, that one was called the same thing by a few people too? It seems to me that anyone coming here looking for the BTN will find the section and see that the GIB is the bridge of fame. However, if someone googles the KAB, and ends up at the KAB article there may be some merit for mentioning its short lived fame during the campaign there. On the other hand, I personally have no objection to a short statement, oh, perhaps something like, The Knik Arm Bridge, a proposed bridge from the Mat-Su Valley to Alaska's largest city, Anchorage, has also been called a bridge to nowhere by some., or something like that. Zaereth (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I Support Editor:Zaereth's Statement as a minimum. I would support inclusion of mentioning the initial piggy-backing of funds for both bridges from Washington, DC. But as long as there is mention of a second bridge, the arithmetic problem is solved.--Buster7 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I say include the GIB, leave out the KAB. There are places to cover the KAB in Wikipedia, but Sarah Palin's biography isn't one of them. Kelly ^hi! 19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly, et al.

The present article currently says "Because Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport, has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the 'Bridge to Nowhere.'" As a compromise measure, it would probably be okay to add a parenthetical: "Because Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport, has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the 'Bridge to Nowhere' (Alaska's proposed Knik Arm Bridge and various other bridges are also sometimes known by this nickname)." But I'd prefer to leave Knik Arm out of the parenthetical, because people can find out about it by clicking on various other bridges.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, it doesn't address (but rather circumvents) the mathematical question raised by Buster and GP for some time that was derived from the citation of ~$400M (don't recall the exact figure) for the two bridges. Therefore, I think we must first agree that aggregation of the two bridges in that reference was arbitrary, i.e that the citation included just the two bridges and excluded other budgeted items in the same spending bill for no reason of particular interest to this biography. If we can agree that Gravina Island and Knik Arm projects have no more inherently in common than, say, Gravina Island and a new school project from the same bill, then it would be fair to use one of the abundant references on Bridge to Nowhere that isolate the funding to just that associated with Gravina Island. That makes the mathematical problem moot. Does that make sense? Fcreid (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the body of Jimmy Hoffa must be hidden in the pilings for the Knik Arm Bridge. Otherwise, I cannot see why there is such a conserted and determined effort to keep mention of this bridge out. Or why that effort has continued for month after month after month. Why should we have the reader go elsewhere for information that pretains, if not specifically to Candidate Palin, at the very least pertains to the time period when she achieved national prominence? Editor:Zaereth's suggestion (The Knik Arm Bridge, a proposed bridge from the Mat-Su Valley to Alaska's largest city, Anchorage, has also been called a bridge to nowhere by some.) is a good, fair, and impartial meeting point to express the alternative desires of many editors.--Buster7 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No underlying motive on my part, other than to maintain relevance and notability to this individual. Palin had nothing to do with Knik Arm, and Knik Arm was not the Bridge to Nowhere of national fame or the topic of her "thanks, but no thanks" speech. I agreed to the disambiguation, and I also agree with Zaereth's proposed mention (with a wiki-link to the article on Knik Arm). However, as you can see by GP's proposed paragraph, it seems that even providing a crack for Knik Arm can be perceived as enough room to drive a truck through this biography! Fcreid (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor bookkeeping matter

The first paragraph of the section about the “Bridge to Nowhere” doesn’t have any footnote, so everything in it is now uncited. For many months, there used to be a footnote:

Associated Press (September 22, 2007). "'Bridge to nowhere' abandoned". CNN.com.

Unfortunately, this became a dead link, which is why it was removed from this Wikipedia article. I hope maybe we can replace that dead link with the following live link to the same article:

Associated Press (September 23, 2007). "Alaska Seeks Alternative to Bridge Plan". New York Times. Retrieved April 3, 2009.

No rush.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Format the cite, and I'll be happy to add it; or if you are patient I will format it as soon as I can find time and add it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

{{cite web |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/us/23bridge.html?n=Top/News/U.S./U.S.%20States,%20Territories%20and%20Possessions/Alaska|date=September 23, 2007|publisher=New York Times |title= Alaska Seeks Alternative to Bridge Plan|author=Associated Press|accessdate=April 3, 2009}}

Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks.

FYI, this does NOT source the paragraph as written, so another cite is needed and/or the para will need to be rewritten, or both. I suggest all editors working on the article carefully read the source and be on the lookout for other sources; at some point someone is going to have to strip the section of all unsourced assertions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs <ref> and </ref>.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed First Paragraph on Bridge

Zaereth suggested above that I propose a solution for us to discuss in depth. Below is my proposed first paragraph on the "Bridge to Nowhere" section. This paragraph and one important footnote to it would be the only mention of KAB in the entire biography. The remainder of this section would deal exclusively with Gravina Island.

"Bridge to Nowhere"

Main article: Gravina Island Bridge

In 2005, Congress passed a $442-million earmark for constructing two Alaska bridges (Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge (**footnote**) )as part of an omnibus spending bill. [1] Critics of the two bridge proposals, including John McCain, gave them national attention as symbols of pork-barrel spending. [2] Congress responded to the intense criticism by stripping the earmark from the bill before final passage in November 2005 and instead giving the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.[3] The more controversial Gravina Island Bridge would have linked Ketchikan to its airport on Gravina Island. [4] Given Gravina Island’s small population of 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere". [5]More rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has been applied to both bridge proposals.[6]

• • footnote** The Knik Arm Bridge (also known as "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman Don Young) was proposed to cross the Knik Arm Inlet to provide an alternate transportation link between Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, including Wasilla, the closest city 40 miles away.[source] Unlike Gravina Island Bridge, where Palin changed her mind and canceled the project, Palin continues to support the Knik Arm Bridge[source] but has been criticized by some who note the link to her hometown. [source] For more information, see [Knik Arm Bridge].

I'll put in the citations later, but this proposal barely mentions KAB in the first paragraph. It simply notes that KAB was the second bridge of the earmark that was criticized and revoked, and that KAB has "more rarely" been called a Bridge to Nowhere. The rest of the entire section would focus exclusively on GIB. I would, however, want to at least include in a footnote (or separate section) the details that were in the main text on Election Day, so that folks who want to know more about KAB would be able to distinguish it from GIB, know that Palin continues to support it, and that some have criticized her for it. I would have no problem with supporters of KAB expanding the footnote further if they feel it necessary, although I don't think it is.

With the first paragraph as necessary background, the second and third paragraphs would remain the same, with the focus on Palin and her support then cancellation of GIB. I have problems with the fourth paragraph but we'll get to that later. The important thing is there would be no more mention of KAB. 90% of the stuff in Election Day on the KAB is thus relegated to a footnote. Hidden perhaps, but not gone. How's that for a compromise?GreekParadise (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to ignore completely the entire dialog of the past several days, GP. Some specific problems:

• McCain was critical of all earmarks in every bill. In that same bill, he lashed out at every earmark, specifically identifying a "Teapot Museum", an "Inner Harmony Foundation and Wellness Center" and several other earmarks in that same bill. Expanding Palin's biography to include McCain's objections to each and every one of these earmarks is beyond relevance, as Palin wasn't even in office at the time and had nothing to do with the proposal or adoption of these earmarks.
• McCain never identified Knik Arm as a Bridge to Nowhere. His exact quote with respect to the Bridge to Nowhere was, "We figure it is about $80 million. It could be a lot more than that. Guess how many people live on the Gravina Island? Fifty; five-zero. I don’t know what that works out to per capita, but it is about a million-something per person at least." As you can see, McCain identified specifically (and only) Gravina Island.
• The fact that some refer to the proposed Knik Arm Bridge as Don Young's Way is in no way relevant to Palin. That type of trivia belongs in the Knik_Arm_Bridge article.
• There is zero relevance to Knik Arm's proximity to Palin's hometown, as we discussed above. She wasn't even born when Knik Arm was chosen as a proposed northern point for a bridge to Mat-Su Valley, and she was in diapers when the exact northern landing zone was chosen. Why would you even try to interject that? :-\

Fcreid (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add another objection to GP's draft, which says: "In 2005, Congress passed a $442-million earmark." That's not correct, and I think we could avoid much confusion if we stick more closely to what happened in 2005.

According to an article in the Politico: "Scattered throughout the 835-page agreement were five separate earmarks totaling $231 million for the Knik Arm Bridge and three earmarks totaling $223 million for the Gravina Island Bridge. Congress quickly approved the gravy boat and sent it to President Bush for his signature."

Stern, Marcus. "Palin defended bridge to 'spinmeisters'", Politico (2008-09-25).

Ferrylodge (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As yet, the derived (and occasionally contrived) points of intersect have not made Knik Arm morph magically before our eyes into Gravina Island. Gravina Island, the true Bridge to Nowhere, has relevance to Palin because of her "thanks, but no thanks" speech and its national recognition as a poster child for wasteful spending. Nothing presented here thus far establishes even a tenuous relationship between Knik Arm and Palin. Thus, unless someone has something about Knik Arm with significant relevance to Palin, I recommend we add the disambiguation suggested by Zaereth above and move on. Fcreid (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) Note also that "continues to support" the KAB is not only currently moot, it is incorrect. Nor was Palin actually quoted as offering "support" at the time the Dems accused her of "continuing to support" the KAB. Nor is the "Don Young's Way" proposed name in any way connected with Palin. She did not propose the name, support the name, or use the name. Placing that name in her BLP is of absolutely no BLP use. The only place I found the name was in the original earmark, which she had absolutely nothing to do with. Collect (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following modification to the introductory paragraph under "Bridge to Nowhere" to disambiguate the term with respect to Knik Arm and to establish a baseline clarifying that Gravina Island was, in fact, the controversial bridge referenced in the Palin campaign:

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed $223-million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. Because Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmarks from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87] The Knik Arm Bridge, first proposed in the 1950s to connect Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough, was also targeted for $231-million in earmarks in the same bill. Various other bridges, and rarely the Knik Arm Bridge, have shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere".

Citation for the figures above for the bridges separately is Palin defended bridge to 'spinmeisters, Politico (September 25, 2008). The narrative in the third paragraph following needs to be amended to $223-million to segregate that to the Gravina Island "Bridge to Nowhere". Fcreid (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Fcreid's proposal looks perfectly fine to me, as it addresses all of the facts pertainant to Palin in short, concise way that expalins the subject without adding undue weight or insinuation, and provides a link to the relative bridge articles for which people may come looking. Zaereth (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I think we need a link in this article to Bridge to Nowhere, which lists a whole bunch of bridges that go by that name. Can we work that in?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How about just changing that one previously listed in quotes, as I did above? It causes me to remove the "rarely" descriptor, but I think it still works. Fcreid (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Also, if we're going to say that Anchorage is Alaska's largest city, how about mentioning that Mat-Su Valley is one of the most densely settled areas in Alaska?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspect at that point we'll be heaping more attention on KAB than it warrants for this article. As long as we don't discuss KAB any further and confine the ensuing discussions to the $223M and Gravina Island, it might be best to leave out further narrative on KAB in the intro. However, amend as you see fit. Fcreid (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd leave out explicit mention of Anchorage and Mat-Su Valley, and just say that Knik Arm would connect two of Alaska's most densely settled areas. (That's why "Bridge to Nowhere" makes much more sense for the Gravina bridge.)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated and condensed. See if the sentences still work without being too complex. Fcreid (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Thanks. It might be better to wikilink "Bridge to Nowhere" when the term is first used. Per WP:Linking, "Link only the first occurrence of an item."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Presume the second occurrence in quotes is appropriate? Would like to get some other perspectives on the edit and ensure we're really past the disagreements on the relevance of Knik Arm to the Palin biography now. :) Fcreid (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - No objections here.Zaereth (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - This is just the intro to the "Bridge to Nowhere" section. Rest will flow if we distinguish GIB by name and amount. Fcreid (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TY, Editor:Fcreid. I can support if we first look at, and, then resolve, a minor detail. In talk above Editor:Ferrylodge states, ".......and just say that Knik Arm would connect two of Alaska's most densely settled areas." and "......one of the most densely settled areas in Alaska?" But the para states "........to connect Anchorage and the densely populated Mat-Su Valley,.....". The Valley may be densely populated in Alaskan terms but, since Alaska easily has the lowest density in ALL the 50 states, a true sense of quantity is disguised. The reader may be innocently misled to believe that the density of population in the Valley is considerably more than fact. If we remove the word densely, I can support your contribution i.e. I have slight Opposition...--Buster7 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Accurate. And to assuage Buster7, add "relatively densely populated" . I doubt any reader would read this as saying Alaska has areas like Manhattan <g>. And add "the" before "Knik Arm Bridge." Collect (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify---This is the paragraph I would support:

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed $223-million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. Because Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmarks from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87] The Knik Arm Bridge, first proposed in the 1950s to connect Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough, was also targeted for $231-million in earmarks in the same bill. Various other bridges, and rarely the Knik Arm Bridge, have shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere".

.

(Collect's suggestion only add's confusion not clarity)--Buster7 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just "...first proposed in the 1950s to connect Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley, was also ..." and leave it to the reader. Also, as collect mentioned, shouldn't there be a "the" before KAB in the last sentence? --Ali'i 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with proposed changes from Buster and Ali'i. Now that we've distinguished KAB from GIB in the opening paragraph, further qualification on the "legitimacy" of KAB is unnecessary to the remainder of the dialog or to this biography. Fcreid (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I stuck in the word "the", but feel free to revert. The word "populated" should also probably come out, unless some qualifier is added (like densely or relatively).Ferrylodge (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, though I would replace "Mat-Su Valley" with Matanuska-Sustitna Borough, which is the terminology used by the sources. Kelly ^hi! 16:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska had 59,000 people in 2000.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the other benefit of linking to that article is that it contains all the population and geographic info. Kelly ^hi! 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Still no argument from me. The proposed changes look fine. Zaereth (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Ditto.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone make the changes suggested above by Ali'i and Kelly, removing the "populated" part and given the "formal" name of the county? I suck at formatting. Fcreid (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean make the changes here at the talk page, or in the article? Anyhow, I'll assume the former. Feel free to revert.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope here and thanks! Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

'Support. Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Point...I would have preferred that Editors:Ferrylodge and Kelly make their changes in a new (third) rendition of the paragraph rather than go back in time and change Editor:Fcreids original version. Now the ensuing discussion is out-of-joint and unfaithful to its history. Would it be too much to ask that the changes to Editor:Fcreids first paragraph be undone and a new third version be displayed here for all to see and "percolate" on????--Buster7 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to Fcreid's original proposal. It has been changed several times by consensus, and it seemed less confusing to simply edit it with his consent rather than have a whole bunch of different versions in bold at this talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, mea culpa on that, Buster. I was bouncing back and forth to the original paragraph as suggestions were being made, and implied that others should do the same, but it is best to keep the entire thread intact and preserve the evolution of the verbiage. Sorry about that. Fcreid (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Less confusing? How is having the changes visible, here, as they happen, more confusing than a link?? A link that changes his presentation to the group. When Editor:Fcreid created the bolded version that he proposed (just two days ago) it was a break from previous contentiousness. As Fcreid states, the evolution of the verbiage should be preserved. No concern is necessary to protect the thread from a whole bunch of different versions in bold at this talk page. Our concern should be to continue the trend toward resolution. The visible transition toward our goal should be visible to us all, without having to remember the steps that we took to get there. Probably a third of the archives are discussions of the two bridges. Its a bit late to be concerned about the lenghth of the discussion. Will Editor:Ferrylodge make the revert or should I take the time to do it???--Buster7 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been several prior versions. For example, the word "the" was inserted before "Knik Arm Bridge". I didn't think that inserting the word "the" would require writing the whole paragraph an additional time. Maybe I was mistaken. In any event, I would rather that Buster or others tinker with it now, if it is going to be tinkered with (I don't want to risk doing it in an unsatsfying manner). Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the version I support. I won't bother to investigate which Editor changed even my reworking of Fcreids para rather that just Editor:Fcreids. That type of editing brings out into the open the subtle encumberances that have prevented co-operation since August of 2008..

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed $223-million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. Because Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmarks from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87] The Knik Arm Bridge, first proposed in the 1950s to connect Anchorage and the populated Mat-Su Valley, was also targeted for $231-million in earmarks in the same bill. Various other bridges, and rarely Knik Arm Bridge, have shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere".. Please do not alter this version. Changes can be made and displayed below.--Buster7 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fcreid's version has wikilinks, and uses the language "Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough" instead of "Anchorage and populated Mat-Su Valley." So, the differences seem like slight copy-editing things. I'd prefer a version that has wikilinks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

@Editor:Ferrylodge...ED:Fcreids first para, which you bolded for emphasis, had "Anchorage and populated Mat-Su Valley." It may have even had "densely" at that point, I don't remember. It may have been changed. This is not about wikilinks. When you changed ED:Fcreid's version, you also, surprisingly, changed my subsequent version. You made it appear as tho I was in support of the changes, which I am not. Lets keep the changes that are made transparent and visible. Lets move forward with a sense of community. Lets make a deal---You don't change my words and I won't change yours!--Buster7 (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sorry for any misunderstanding.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Buster7's version is above, "my" version proposed reads:

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. Because Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmarks from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87] The Knik Arm Bridge, first proposed in the 1950s to connect Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, was also targeted for $231 million in earmarks in the same bill. Various other bridges, and rarely the Knik Arm Bridge, have shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere".

So, which do people prefer, or do people have additional changes desired (note: I added another "the" before Matanuska-Susitna Borough after looking at how the official gov't website uses the definite article, and a couple of other links/copyedits)? Also, please remember that this is only the first paragraph in the section. Hopefully we're getting close to a resolution. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Your version flows well and has an appropriate balance of links to other resources, should the user wish to explore further. It doesn't appear to diverge on any substantive areas we've discussed during the past week(s). Fcreid (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, nice work, Ali'i. Kelly ^hi! 14:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it's mostly the work of others. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Although maybe it might be good to merge the last two sentences and separate them by a semicolon. But I support either way. Not going to get bent out of shape about a semicolon!Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - I prefer this paragraph because it does provide links to some relevent articles. Someone coming here for the first time might not know where the Mat-Su Valley is, or even what a borough is, so I believe the official name with a link should be used. Zaereth (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support We might change "because" to "as." "Because" implies a much stronger direct causality than "as" does, and I would suggest that it was not the only reason it was considered "pork batrrel spending" -- it was seen to be an amount of money disproportionate to Alaska's total population as well. And I agree that we might well merge the last two sentences. Collect (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Strenuously Oppose - It is false to state or imply that ONLY the Gravina earmark was opposed as pork-barrel spending. BOTH the Gravina and Knik Arm earmarks were opposed as pork barrel spending and both were removed for that reason. I can show you 100 articles supporting my position and I'm not aware of A SINGLE ARTICLE contemporaneous with the event that suggests that only the Gravina Bridge earmark was removed. BOTH bridges were considered pork barrel and BOTH earmarks were removed. A fact is a fact is a fact. I apologize for being the odd man out, but I know the history here and I have read the sources. If 1000 people say the British won the American Revolutionary War and I was the only person saying the Americans won, I would still stand by the truth. If anyone has any source to suggest that the GIB earmark and ONLY the GIB earmark was criticized and removed by Congress in 2005, I would request you to show me your source. And if people want to see my sources that both bridge earmarks were removed, let me know. (Many of those sources are in the Election Day version of this article.)

Here's the accurate version I support, short and sweet, derived from the version above:

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge, received an additional $231 million in earmarks and more rarely shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87]

Then, in footnote 87, we could briefly describe in one sentence the Knik Arm Bridge. (Let's get the main text down and then argue the footnote.) My version is 118 words, instead of 135 words, or about 15% shorter, with less emphasis on Knik Arm Bridge, which is what I thought people wanted. Mine has the added advantage of being accurate (though I'd have to recheck the exact earmark numbers), whereas the proposed version is, unfortunately, a false depiction of events in that it implies that only the GAB earmark was criticized and removed and not KAB. The rest of the section would deal exclusively with the GIB. I am open to compromise on this, but I am not open to the any suggestion that the KAB earmark was not criticized and removed from the bill along with GIB. That's just not truthful. You don't have to agree with the Congressional decision (many do love the KAB and supported the Congressional earmark) but one can't deny Congress did what they did.GreekParadise (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Knik Arm is not equal to Palin's "Bridge to Nowhere". Palin was not in office when either the bridge or the earmarks were conceived or funded. Start with those premises, and we can move forward rather than in circles. We're not here to argue history or whether all federal funding, all transportation projects or all earmarks are bad, or whether all earmarks are symbolic of "pork-barrel" spending. None of that belongs in the Palin article. Knik Arm Bridge was *not* the Bridge to Nowhere, and nothing will change that. The only bridge project that has relevance to Palin is Gravina Island, i.e. the "Bridge to Nowhere". There was no public outcry of "Bridges to Nowhere", and the public wasn't referring to Knik Arm. John McCain never referred to Knik Arm as the Bridge to Nowhere, and he specifically referred to Gravina Island. Palin never said "thanks, but no thanks" for the Knik Arm "Bridge to Nowhere", and she wasn't referring to Knik Arm when talking to residents of Ketchikan. Moreover, the Palin biography is not a treatise on earmarks, and there were hundreds in the same bill, many of which were removed (and all had nothing to do with Palin), such as a Teapot Museum. If you would like to work those examples of pork-barrel spending into an "Earmark" article to elaborate on the waste, that would be fine. GP, we compromised here to allow disambiguation of Knik Arm because you found rare references to it as "Bridge to Nowhere". Despite, I don't think anyone here is going to let sleight of hand distort Knik Arm into the Bridge to Nowhere before our eyes in the context of the Palin article. Knik Arm had nothing to do with Palin. Can we at least agree on that point? Fcreid (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Many did call KAB a Bridge to Nowhere at the time. I can show you dozens of articles or you can google them. As noted above, for every 10 articles calling GIB the Bridge to Nowhere, there are 6 calling KAB the Bridge to Nowhere. That's hardly very rare. KAB WAS called the Bridge to Nowhere by more than 10,000 sources and nothing will change that. Palin supported KAB. McCain did not. Nothing will change that. There WAS a public outcry of "Bridges to Nowhere" including KAB even if the public outcry was smaller than that toward GIB. That being said, I can't deny that "thanks but not thanks" and Ketchikan referred to GIB and not KAB. That's why I want to clearly distinguish them. And I can't agree that KAB has nothing to do with Palin since I have dozens of articles that specifically criticize her for supporting a bridge that aids Wasilla more than any other single place. Is GIB more important? It is. But KAB is important too, albeit to a lesser extent. As I wrote on my talk page in response to Fcried:

The reason why it matters to Palin is that she claimed to be an earmark-fighter just like McCain throughout the campaign. The claim was way exaggerated, if not completely false, and GIB was not the only example. She was criticized about KAB because it was an alternate route to Wasilla (which is the closest town to the non-Anchorage side of the bridge. There simply aren't any towns in Mat-Su served by the KAB better than Wasilla.) She continues to support the KAB bridge and the federal earmarks for it. Now that's all well and good if you support the bridge and the earmarks, and I don't mean to suggest anything nefarious about it, except that it contradicts Palin's claim to be a fighter against earmarks and federal spending. Do you understand what I'm saying? Everything you cite -- federal spending, earmarks, pork-barrel, and McCain -- IS relevant to Palin because she ran with McCain and claimed to have the same beliefs as McCain on federal spending, earmarks, and pork barrel as he did. But she didn't. And that fact needs to be somewhere in this bio. If you prefer to put it back in the campaign section -- where it was removed without warning -- I'm OK with that too. But it's not just disambiguation. It is relevant to Palin. I have no intention or desire to let KAB morph into GIB. You're absolutely right that GIB is more famous and has more often been called the Bridge to Nowhere. You're right that "thanks but not thanks" referred to GIB and not KAB and that should be clearly specified. I even think an argument can be made that GIB is a more necessary bridge than KAB because it serves an airport while there are no significant communities between the other side of the proposed KAB and Wasilla (which already has a road to Anchorage). I'm really not trying to "disrespect" either bridge. I just want to present the controversy so people understand it. And I don't want to hide Palin's hypocrisy on this. Do you see my point? Is there room for compromise?GreekParadise (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think it's pretty clear that a big majority of editors are satisfied with the Ali'i version as the first paragraph of this section. However, if admins would like us to keep talking in an attempt to reach unanimity, then we can do that too. No problemo. The best way to get to unanimity would probably be to identify what reliable sources we'll be citing in the first paragraph. It's kind of putting the cart before the horse to try to write the paragraph, and then later add some sources. Currently, the paragraph cites this source:

• Associated Press. “Alaska Seeks Alternative to Bridge Plan”, New York Times (2007-09-23).

It's also been propsoed to cite the following additional source for the first paragraph:

• Stern, Marcus. "Palin defended bridge to 'spinmeisters'", Politico (2008-09-25).

Do people want the first paragraph to cite any additional sources? If so, please list them. Once we have a list of suorces, then we can try to neutrally summarize what they say.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not assume that a "big majority" had expressed satisfaction with any one version until all versions are presented. A few editors have expressed a preference. How many?...a few...--Buster7 (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Buster, are these the only two sources that will be cited by the first paragraph of the section, or would you like the first paragraph to cite additional sources? Please list any additional sources. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One is http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html. The other is http://alaska.sierraclub.org/issues/urban/knik-arm-crossing.html. Thank You.--Buster7 (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The two sources that you would like to add to the first paragraph of this section are:

• Hulse, Carl. “Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress”, New York Times (2005-11-17).

• Oman, Maryellen. “Knik Arm Crossing, A Bridge to Nowhere”, Web site of Sierra Club, Alaska Chapter. (undated)

Unfortunately, I don't think those are acceptable refs for the first paragraph. Have you got any others? Neither of these two refs mention Palin, which raises concerns about original research, synthesis, undue weight, and that kind of stuff. Also, as much as I admire the Sierra Club, their website does not seem like a reliable source within the meaning of WP:RS.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Baby Daddy

The recent edit using this phrase was childish and unnecesary. I must have missed the final discussion regarding how the mention of Levi Johnson would be handled. I support giving the child's name and, in that way, handling the naming of the father. The compromise works for me. But the attempted inclusion of this tabloid version does not. I attempted to undo, but another editor had already stepped in.--Buster7 (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See archive 51 for discussion re;Levi Johnston redirects here, but he is no longer mentioned in the article--Buster7 (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there was fairly broad agreement to modify the existing statement about the grandchild's birth to name the father and close the loop on the redirect, e.g. "born to Bristol and her boyfriend, Levi Johnston" or something. Fcreid (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Baby daddy" is a recognized terminology in wikipedia, redirecting to father. So in terms of provenance, first question the wikipedia redirect, after it's deletion you then have grounds to question my use of the term. Even though the term is colloquial and accepted by wikipedia, upon consideration of your objection I changed the text to say the baby's father. The entire selection was then deleted again. Furthermore, Levi Johnston's videotaped interview is not in violation of TOS because it's his direct testimony. Moreover, the arrest of Diana Palin and the involvement of Sarah Palin's 4-year-old niece is relevant.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Baby daddy? Direct testimony on Tyra? Yee-haw! Fcreid (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Levi Johnston's name should certainly be in the article. There was mainstream RS coverage of the Tyra Banks interview, e.g., MSNBC, AP, NY Daily News so that sourcing can be included to back up the transcript. I would stay away from "baby daddy" however. Tvoz/talk 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like that might have relevance to a biography of Bristol Palin or Levi Johnston. Exactly why does it belong it belong in a biography of Sarah Palin? Kelly ^hi! 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone says that one of her central principles is the sanctity of life and encouragement of abstinence as a viable choice for a young couple, and then it is revealed that this may not have been how she conducted her own family life - it seems relevant to her bio. She chose to make such private matters a part of her public image, she paraded the couple around in front of the world instead of leaving them alone to work out their issues in private, and she continues to do so by having an official response to Johnston's interview, so as long as we have reliable sources discussing it, I think it is appropriate to go in here. Tvoz/talk 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess a similar statement could be made about Joe Biden, his daughter Ashley, and his stance on illegal drugs. But I don't think that would be appropriate for his biography either. Also, I don't know if "paraded the couple around" would be a fair term - I only know of one public appearance the couple made, at the GOP convention. It seemed to be the tabloid press that wouldn't allow them privacy, not the Governor. Kelly ^hi! 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ashley Biden matter was an unsubstantiated and I believe un-responded to rumor - rather different from this, but as per KC's request, this can be hashed out later. It's not a burning issue. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a bit disheartened to hear someone actually think that, particularly given the impetus for Palin's announcement of her daughter's pregnancy was a direct response to vile rumors regarding the birth of her own child. Palin would have gladly kept her family and its personal business from the public eye. The only thing "newsworthy" about this Johnston interview is that we, as a society, have degenerated to the point where we reward producers of this sensationalist crap to exploit a young man so he can, in turn, recount his own exploits of a young girl in front of an audience gasping "oohs" and "aahs". We ought to be ashamed. It was an utterly cheap and vile campaign against Palin and her family after her selection as McCain's running mate, and it appears that isn't going to stop. Fcreid (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've warned Ozarkhighlands (talk · contribs) about the article probation and left a notice on the probation page. Kelly ^hi! 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm out of this one... you guys can run with it, but I draw the line at having to watch Tyra to get factual information about Sarah Palin. You might pique my interest when Judge Judy pays the young couple enough to work out their dispute in public... or Jerry -- as long as there's furniture to throw! :) Fcreid (talk)

Levi Johnston gave an interview broadcast on national television. While he is not "under oath" such an interview comprises a form of personal testimony; furthermore, it is testimony related directly to Gov. Palin. If this isn't so then why does Gov. Palin's own official press release engage and discredit Johnston's interview? As for the arrest of Governor Palin's sister-in-laws and the involvement of Gov. Palin's niece at the scene -- these facts are a matter of undisputed public record involving blood family of a the governor of a US state. Gov. Palin's family is the subject of national news programs and articles visible to tens of millions if not more. That's newsworthy and biographical.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Young Mr. Johnson gave an interview. So what! At best he is a bit player in the current scenes of Sarah Palin's life. A sperm donor. This is not the National Enquirer (also, like the Tyra Banks Show, a national media source). But, more upsetting than the edit itself, is Editor:Ozarkhighlands edit warrior attempts to force it into the article in the face of repeated reverts by at least 3 fellow editors. I"ve seen WikiFriends banned for less!--Buster7 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A sperm donor? Hmm, that's not the way they played it last year, is it. I'm not supporting edit warring, by the way - I'm commenting only on whether or not Levi Johnston's name and his interview should be included. Tvoz/talk 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't reinsert the info. But please note, and observe the history page, that each time I did update the information it was to add references from the AP and UPI and additional information on relevance such as Gov Palin's own press release on Johnston's Tyra Banks interview.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You've been notified, and I notice, notified twice now, that this article is a BLP on probation. I suggest you refrain from any bold edits at all, and from edit warring completely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding: This is another perennial topic. I suggest editors work on resolving the B2N debate, which appears to be working on Both bridges or just the one, or one and a mention? and also how much prominence to give the term B2N. After that, it might be a good idea to hash it out with everyone to settle the Levi Debate: Mention Levi, or ignore the randy lil redneck? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) KC, there was a consensus proposal a couple weeks ago to modify this line in the "Personal Life" section to read: "Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter, Bristol, and boyfriend, Levi Johnston, in 2008.[165]" The same citation is sufficient, and this closes the loop on any redirect for Levi Johnston to this page. I believe there was consensus for this change. Should Levi find more that his 15 minutes of fame and earn his own WP article, we can later wiki-link to that. Fcreid (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur it seems to be more or less stable, recent editor-new-to-the-article aside, however my point was more "can you drop this and get back to the bridge discussion?" rather than "lets talk about Levi". Same difference in effect. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, KC - I was not trying to prolong a discussion out of process, but was responding to what I see as an incorrect position regarding the notability of the matter, in light of the changed sourced situation since the consensus proposal Fcreid refers to. But, as I've argued plenty of times before all over the place, there is no emergency, no rush, and time to reflect is always a good thing. <optimism> Settle the bridge thing first</optimism>, and then we can talk about Levi. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Consensus can always change, but IMO while the Bridge debate is making such excellent progress is not necessarily a good time to revisit Levi; I appreciate your forbearance and patience. It would be nice to get the bridge thing in a stable, more or less consensus version, as that's been a large source of discord here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Been avoiding the topic, but given the reverts today, I wanted to voice my opinion that the current wording with respect to Levi is both accurate and useful. First, there is a redirect to here on his name (apparently), but really no point of reference unless you know "Tripp Johnston" is his son with Bristol. Next, it certainly has received media coverage, both in the "conceptual" stages (pun intended) and subsequently in both Johnston's and Bristol's appearances to discuss the circumstances. Finally, it seems to be something the family is (reluctantly, at least) willing to discuss publicly, if for no reason more than to highlight why abstinence or contraception are sensible "prophylactic" means (pun intended) of averting this type of responsibility before being able to enjoy other aspects of growing up that one might miss as a result. Anyway, I think the "then-boyfriend" part is not contentious and illuminates the appropriate and relevant parts of this business without being salacious, condescending or judgmental. Fcreid (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree - Levi Johnson's relationship with Sarah Palin is tangential. If we had biographies of Bristol Palin or Tripp Johnston, then he's be relevant. But this a biography of Sarah Palin. It's appropriate to mention she has a grandson, but not appropriate to include all the second-degree relationships she has. Kelly ^hi! 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid - she made it a public matter last year, and those public statements have continued. However, I thought we were going to wait before re-opening this discussion - how are you'all doing on that bridge matter? I can't read it. Tvoz/talk 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How did she make it a public matter? By introducing her family? Kelly ^hi! 09:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that one of the attributes for which Palin herself is well-known is the birth of her unmarried daughter's child. While it's a sad testimonial on society that private affairs like this become fodder for public commentary, it's also a modern 24/7-news reality. Personally, I think the family has dealt with the matter superbly and with great dignity under such public scrutiny. Their decision to keep the child is absolutely admirable, particularly in these days of treating unwanted pregnancies as "throwaway" mistakes. The public statements of Bristol and her mother that four generations of the Palin family have rallied around Bristol is worthy of emulation in these times when family bonds are constantly strained by much less consequential demands of society. Finally, the decision by both Bristol and her mother to speak publicly and use the opportunity to provide an example to other young women in similar situations seems very well-conceived, as it provides an opportunity not only to highlight the wisdom of abstinence and contraception but also to show that even unwanted pregnancies produce great joy. Frankly, I think we should be celebrating the event in this biography. How Levi fits into that (literally and figuratively) is really the only matter of contention. Fcreid (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Versions/Opening the Bridge

There were 4 versions of the paragraph. Since my version received zero support, I will withdraw it. Since changes (which he supported) were made to Fcreids initial paragraph, we can use the Editor:Ali'i version as the most recent community version.

• • Editor:Ali'i April 9 version:

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. Because Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmarks from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87] The Knik Arm Bridge, first proposed in the 1950s to connect Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, was also targeted for $231 million in earmarks in the same bill. Various other bridges, and rarely the Knik Arm Bridge, have shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere".

• • Editor:Greek Paradise April 11 version:

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge, received an additional $231 million in earmarks and more rarely shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87]

To bring clarity, I would request that editors choose between these two. Also, that previous support or opposition (from April 5th to April 10th) be disregarded and we begin a new tally as of this new starting point. I feel this is necessary since editors expressed "SUPPORT" while at the same time offering changes. So it still was not a clear tally of which version was being supported....If I could set up the page to provide a clearly visible tally count I would. Maybe some fellow editor could provide a better layout for a consensus "poll".

I have inserted this thread here (above a previous ongoing thread) only for editing and conversational purposes. If an editor wishes to change either version, even slightly, my hope is that they will present a new THIRD version for fellow editors to consider--Buster7 (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, I contend that GP's proposed version is inaccurate. First, it omits a critical fact that the original version included, i.e. that all of this occurred before Palin was governor of Alaska. (Please, if we remember who this article concerns, it will be much easier to distinguish relevancy!) Second, the rearrangement of facts wrongly implies that McCain objected to the Knik Arm Bridge and categorized the proposed earmark as a "Bridge to Nowhere". Neither of those implications is accurate. McCain simply did not vote for the bill and all of its earmarks, including the Teapot Museum. (Doesn't he have some Congressional record with respect to voting against any bill with earmarks?) McCain specifically identified only the Gravina Island Bridge as a "Bridge to Nowhere", and the only bridge that has relevance either to Palin's political career in Alaska or to her verbal and political missteps during her campaign is Gravina Island. Fcreid (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Fcried's concerns:

If you want to put in that Palin wasn't governor at the time, you can. It's already in the article when she became governor, and if you recall, the reason why the content in the original two paragraphs were removed was ostensibly for space reasons. I believe that we should cut fat before bone and redundancies before removing accurate well-sourced content. But as long as folks don't mind me reinserting accurate, well-sourced content, I have no problem with repeating when Palin became governor although I think it is unnecessary.

McCain opposed both bridges but, to my knowledge, at the time never called either bridge a Bridge to Nowhere. I never claimed he did. But I do insist he opposed both bridges.

As noted above, I disagree that the KAB has no relevance to Palin because she has been specifically criticized for it. Let me know if you need me to repeat the links again.GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I still support the Ali'i April 9 version, and I don't think it should be necessary for me to re-state that either. It doesn't seem right to call for a new show of support for the Ali'i version when people have already made clear their support for it and have not indicated any change.

There are several problems with the GP version:

• The GP version says that KAB is "more rarely" called a Bridge to Nowhere which (perhaps inadvertently) implies that Gravina Bridge is also rarely known as a Bridge to Nowhere, just not quite as rarely as KAB.

We can fix this. You like "less often"?GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The GP version omits mention of all the various other Bridges to Nowhere besides KAB and Gravina.

Those bridges are, unlike KAB, irrelevant to Palin and Alaska. Most are in other countries.GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The GP version does not mention what KAB connects, but does mention what Gravina connects; is this because Gravina connects a sparsely populated area but KAB does not? That does not seem like a valid reason to omit the info.

I have no problem saying what KAB connects, as long as it's clear that Palin was criticized for the connection to Wasilla. It makes the article longer, and again, the reason it was ostensibly removed was length. But I'm OK with it. Indeed, that's how the Election Day article had it originally.GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• GP version omits that the earmarks were adopted and subsequently stripped before Palin became governor.

Addressed above.GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If it would garner GP's support for the Ali'i version, I would support modifying the Ali'i version by moving a sentence ("Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmarks from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund") to the end of the paragraph, so it will be more clear that the earmarks for KAB were removed.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would also support your suggested adjustment to the Ali'i version (moving the sentence that Congress eliminated the earmarks until after the introduction of both bridges), thereby ensuring no ambiguity that Congress ultimately eliminated funding for both. For what it's worth, I am not trying to suppress fact, i.e. that KAB had earmarks in the same bill, that Congress removed those earmarks or that McCain hates all earmarks. I just want to keep facts relevant to this biography. Thus far, the only bridge with any demonstrated relevance to Palin is Gravina Island. One caveat: if we do move that sentence, I would like to include the qualifying phrase "and other earmarks" in that sentence to make it clear that Congress did not single out these two bridges. Fcreid (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that mentions other earmarks were eliminated?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:VOTE Collect (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that what we are doing is not a vote or a tally or an establishment of majority. We are working toward a Consensus via the power of convincing. But, when editors start to voice support in BOLDED LETTERS they are taking a stand, they are making a choice....one thing over another. And it is quite common to evaluate a growing consensus by how many involved editors voice their support or opposition and for what and why. But, then, if subsequent editors make changes or suggest changes, it cannot be presumed that the previous support group is still in support. When I suggested that we start over it was due to the fact that two editors, Ferrylodge and Collect, voiced support but suggested changes.

I was also aware that as we discuss and whittle and improve and come to agreement, the para will develope and change as many have done before. Maybe I should re-evaluate what is meant by support and assume that it is only to give fellow editors a hint that we are on the right road. The bolded supports looked like preferences to me. My attempt is only to smooth over the potholes on that road. So, it seems safe to also assume that no ratio of yeas/nays will happen. The consensus will be decided by the administrators present. ITITC, no bolded supports or oppose are necessary.--Buster7 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Editor:Ferrylodge, April 11th version;

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. Because Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. ] The Knik Arm Bridge, first proposed in the 1950s to connect Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, was also targeted for $231 million in earmarks in the same bill. Various other bridges, and rarely the Knik Arm Bridge, have shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere". Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmarks from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87]

• • Editor:Fcreid, April 11th version;

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. Because Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. ] The Knik Arm Bridge, first proposed in the 1950s to connect Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, was also targeted for $231 million in earmarks in the same bill. Various other bridges, and rarely the Knik Arm Bridge, have shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere". Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge and other earmarks from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.[87]

Editor:GP. Can you provide a new "Saturday" version for comparison?? Thank You....--Buster7 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I can. We're getting closer. I have highlighted the major differences in italics:

• • Editor:GreekParadise, April 12th version;

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. Because Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge, received an additional $231 million in earmarks. This second bridge, providing an alternative route from Anchorage to Palin’s hometown of Wasilla in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, also occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated the earmarks for both Alaska bridges and gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

1. One question is whether to include John McCain. I say yes.

2. The second question is whether to include the connection to Wasilla. I say yes. (Let me know if you need sources for both facts.)

3. And the third question is whether to mention that other bridges in other countries with no connection to McCain, Palin, or Alaska, which have very rarely been called Bridge to Nowhere (much much less than GIB or KAB) should also be mentioned in this bio. I say no.

Other than those three issues, I think we basically agree.GreekParadise (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Editor:GP....would you prefer that your most recent suggested paragraph (April 12 version) supercede your April 11 version?? I won't erase or change either one. I just want to keep things clear. Can I suggest that you provide a title similar to the previous ones i.e. (Editor:GreekParadise, April 12th version.) Thank You!....--Buster7 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with either. You can call this the April 12 version if you want. I see my latter version as a compromise in that I have more closely tracked the Fcried/Ferrylodge version.GreekParadise (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This is a BLP on Sarah Palin. John McCain's position, last I checked, is fully covered in his article and in the campaign articles. Wasilla is not all that close to the bridge which was proposed. Saying it was important when it actually provides a longer route from Wasilla to Anchorage is odd. How many people will pay a large toll in order to drive twenty more miles or thereabouts? Hint: Not many. And the watchdog groups call other US brigdes "bridges to nowhere" -- and even lambasted the Alaska "Funny River" bridge the prior year. And many were more wdely called that than the KAB ever was. Congress also made a bunch of "reallotments" from the original bill. Ought we list all the changes? The PDF files for the full bills and congressional debate are available. My opinion is that this article is not here to show Palin's "hypocrisy" but to be a BLP on a notable person. Collect (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

John McCain's position on the bridges, the criticism that Palin supported KAB due to its providing an alternate route to Wasilla, and the use of the Bridge to Nowhere as a nickname for KAB are all amply verified in many hundreds of verified reliable unbiased sources, from the Associated Press to Alaska newspapers to the New York Times. I have provided them above. If there's any doubt of this, I can again provide a long list of links. The proper response, if one doesn't like including these facts, is not to delete them but to include alternate facts as well. Show where Palin DID agree with McCain on earmarks, if such an example exists. If a fact is truthful and verifiable and relevant, it can indeed be critical of the subject of a biography of a living person. I remind everyone that these truthful, verifiable, and relevant facts were originally deleted solely on the basis of the article being "too long." But when I have tried to delete redundancies (like repeating the date Palin became Governor in the bridge section even though it is clearly laid out elsewhere), I have been told the fact must be repeated. I'm OK with that because I'm always fighting to include material, rather than delete it. But can we all agree that redundancies should be deleted prior to deleting truthful, relevant, well-documented facts?GreekParadise (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I say no on both McCain and the Wasilla reference, for the same reasons Collect mentions. In addition, I can't think of any reason to mention Wasilla than to try to make some inference that Palin only expressed support for a bridge or a ferry out of self-interest...that's certainly the inference the Associated Press was apparently trying to make. A look at a map shows that Wasilla is nowhere near the Knik Arm or the mouth of the Cook Inlet, and there's already a direct route from Anchorage to Wasilla. The bridge is intended to provide access to the southwest part of the Mat-Su Borough from Anchorage, as well as points north such as Fairbanks. Kelly ^hi! 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(edc)I prefer mention of both McCain and Wasilla. As Editor:GP challenges, if you have facts that differ from his, share them with the rest of us. This is not an Auto-biography of a Living person. Facts can be critical. BLP does not preclude using them. Editor:Greek Paradise has provided his verified facts over and over again and has been encyclopedic in his presentations. I would like to see similar counter-balanced presentations from others. Also, as to the distance from Wasilla. I'm sure we can all think of instances where the longer way is byfar the faster way. Distance in Alaska is like distance in Texas. "Just over Yonder" might be a few hundred miles.--Buster7 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Critics didn't "infer" that Palin expressed support for the bridge out of self-interest. They said so, directly and loudly. Several of them. And it wasn't just the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News, generally considered to be verified, unbiased sources. Wasilla's own current mayor confirms that KAB would save commuting time and benefit Wasilla. What could be a stronger source than that? What are your sources, Kelly? Please provide them. I'm afraid your personal opinion based on looking at a map doesn't count. (Though I should note, as I look at the map on Google I see not a single city, town, village, or hamlet on the other side of the Knik Arm Bridge from Anchorage closer than about 40 miles away, the distance to Wasilla.) Kelly, if you have an unbiased media source, please let me review it. Perhaps we can include both majority and minority views. And if you cannot find any unbiased wiki-appropriate source to support your stance on this, an honest admission of that would be highly appreciated as well.GreekParadise (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

McCain opposed ALL earmarks. Period. Including those of Byrd and al the others. As for saving commuting time -- how? The tolls were projected to be on the order of $10 round trip [7], and the distance was more than 20 miles more. [8] "The vast majority of people commuting to Anchorage from the Mat-Su Valley will continue to drive the Glenn Highway because it will continue to be the faster, toll-free route into Anchorage. Only residents living in rural areas like Big Lake, Houston, and Point MacKenzie will find the bridge route more efficient. Additionally, the bridge will add to Anchorage downtown congestion." [9] also stresses that Wasilla commuting time would not be decreased. So the "commute to Wasilla" claim is pretty fairly debunked. Unless, of course, if you lived in Wasilla you would like changing your current free under an hour commute to a one and a half hour commute and pay a toll to boot? Our Alaskan edtors pretty much iterated this a while back. The claim "continues to support" is now a full falsehood as the ferry is being set up. So much for making this a NPOV biography -- it looks like political attempts to expose "hypocrisy" are more important than WP policies. Collect (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

- Just a quick note - something doesn't have to be true for it to be notable enough to include. Smear campaigns are common. The way to keep it NPOV is that if, for example, you find that 'Critics... said... directly and loudly' and then it turns out to be bogus, you add the bit the critics said and that it was bogus, sourcing both. It looks like Buster has sources, including AP, ADN, Wasilla's mayor. Collect, it might well be total bullshit but that's not our job. Your math is, I am sure, correct - but without sourcing your conclusion is OR. You can source this and add it - but you can't say "its a false attack used in a campaign, let's not put it in the article". That is not how to handle political smears. Now, you can argue that it wasn't a big deal in the campaign - you can argue that the way its being written is inaccurate - you can argue all kinds of things, but I'm sorry to say, your argument that a campaign attack might have been a smear is a "duh" not a reason not to include. Obama's not a Muslim, but its in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and Public image of Barack Obama, at least - maybe more. Now, this detail that Palin personally would benefit might not be notable enough to include - but arguing that its false is not the way to approach this. In fact, it doesn't even matter so far as including it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I gave full sourcing for the statements I made, it is rather hard for it to be OR <g>. Now the issue of putting smears into articles has been addressed before on WP. [10] wrt assertions of improper behavior. [11] ArbCom regarding whether "The assertion is that in certain circumstances, article content can violate the spirit and the "do not harm" clause of BLP or allied policies even if adequately sourced and true." The consensus there was that "truth" is an important matter when dealing with BLPs. For example, we found that the "Sarah is actually Tripp's grandmother" even though "sourced" did not belong here. We found the "Jesus ponies" stuff to not belong. All because even though "sourced" they did not belong in the BLP. So we can not say now that we should not include false attacks. We certainly can decide not to include false attacks, and we should. Not the Obama article has zero "false attacks" in it. There is no valid reason for us to allow them here. WP can not afford to be a playground for political smears. And where a clsim can be shown to be factually false, there is no reason to give it credence in WP in any article, BLP or not.

Yes, similar issues have been discussed many times. Of course it can be omitted. I'm not saying you have to include a campaign attack which was proven false; I'm saying that as this is a campaign attack, arguing that it is false is not an argument for exclusion. I apologise if I was unclear and caused any confusion.

There is a difference between fringe attacks and mainstream campaign issues; the problem is to decide whether this is fringe or main (notability) to determine whether to include it. I don't know what you're talking about as regards Jesus ponies, sounds like one I'm glad I missed, but if I haven't answered your questions or objections, let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding, what are you talking about regarding Omaba? I already gave you as an example one false attack which is in three articles. There are lots more; I have no idea what your point is. Please rephrase, because your sentence as written makes no sense to me. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, I'm gone on this. I have far better things to do with my time. We are repeating the same circular logic that stymied coherent discussion on the "Bridge to Nowhere" section prior to the election and which caused me to acquiesce in frustration. Go ahead and lace the article with ridiculous implications that Palin was secretly behind the KAB (even though the project was conceived before her birth) because she happens to live in Wasilla, that she was in league with the Don Young Gang to pad their coffers and get kickbacks from construction and whatever else you want. Fcreid (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Am I not speaking English here? Please read this carefully. I am not involvd in the content dispute. I am explaining rationales; which is policy, which is not. You can argue to omit content from a BLP if it is false, in most cases. The exception is when the false accusation is itself notable, as a false accusation. Can you see the difference? This is almost always in articles about political figures. Arguing that its a false accusation has no weight in that case. Arguing that the accusation was fringe is a valid argument for exclusion, and arguing that it was a minor incident (UNDUE) is a valid argument for exclusion, but agrguing that it was false is not. I will be happy to clarify and explain until the cows come home,but my interest is only in ensuring that you understand that the BLP injunction against detrimental information, whether true or proven false or in limbo, is handled a little differently in a political article. BRB with an example. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The only example I can think of off the top of my head is not a good one - Alfred Dreyfus. The false accusation is the story, here, so not such a good example. But there have been cases of false accusations becoming so widely repeated and accepted that they affected elections or even ruined a politicians career. Can you see how nonsensical it would be to exclude these because they are false, and we know they're false, and we can source it til the cows come home? The way to handle it is to include it, and also include that its false, giving due weight to each. Same with Unproven, or Debatable - we don't decide. We give the sourced views (giving weight as appropriate) and be done. Now, your job as editors is to decide how much weight to give this accusation - include? Not? Paragraph? Sentence? etc. But don't use the "its not true" argument and point to BLP as grounds for exclusion - that is mis-using BLP. Now, if that's unclear, ask me questions, but do NOT tell me what I'm thinking if you think I have an opinion on whether to include this. You will be wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One parting comment, KC. The only place these insinuations got any legs was here on WP, which is why neither you nor I recall this as a news event. Frankly, the obscure references being provided don't even provide the impetus for the accusation. For example, if you look at the citation discussed last week in the AP/ADN story with respect to KAB landing at Knik Arm, the author technically never makes the accusation that her support for the bridge was predicated on Palin's living in Wasilla, but simply states that she does live there and that the bridge would shorten that commute. In addition, regardless of the accuracy of the factoid, the Wasilla mayor only states it would shorten the commute between Anchorage and Wasilla, but never says that's why Palin supported it. (Frankly, even saying that Palin supported it is a stretch as, unlike dozens of her predecessors, she mandated that studies for alternatives to the bridge be conduction.) I know you're confining your role to facilitating consensus and keeping out of the content business, ya gotta admit the entire discussion is bizarre to the point of being comical! I'll try again in a few months. Fcreid (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is this comment to? If to me, you're wasting your time. I don't care. My interest is in ensuring BLP and similar policies are not misunderstood and hence misused. You're not misusing policy; but you're also talking to me. If you're talking to me, make it about policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

....--Buster7 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

editing break

Excellent point, Buster. We've seen reliable sources showing Palin lives in Wasilla, reliable sources showing Palin tepidly supported KAB and reliable source showing KAB might improve the commute from Anchorage to Wasilla. Perhaps we need to examine the reliable sources that specifically state that Palin tepidly supported KAB because it would improve her commute from Anchorage to Wasilla where she lives? Do those exist? (I'm reluctant to let this filibustering once again result in nonsense in that section as it did six months ago, so I'd be willing to give it one more shot if it's not in vain!) Fcreid (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We also have sources showing her support for the ferry ... and also for Dental Health Week etc. The question is -- was her support for the KAB notable enough to warrant all the virtual ink here? Heck -- she was the one who sought additional studies for its feasibility, which does not exactly sound like she was a full backer of the project. And BLP makes clear that contentious material requires a high bar for admission to an article. Just because someone says something negative about a person does not mean that it should be in a BLP. Collect (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we have an editing break and I'm honestly unclear on this: is there agreement that the KAB should even be mentioned at all? The proposed paragraph versions above all mention it, but from what Fcried and Collect just said, it looks to me like all of the proposals might be relying upon a consensus that doesn't actually exist. If that's the case, it might be better to take another step back and deal with that issue before deciding on what version to go with. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, SBJ, it was the reintroduction of a KAB mention that ultimately provided a "crack" that this ensuing dump truck is now attempting to navigate. I will not renege on my prior agreement to include the KAB for disambiguation, as other editors here found rare reference to it as "Bridge to Nowhere". However, as you can tell from my frustration, we are now reliving the same pre-election debacle of irrelevant claims unrelated to Palin's notability. It is my specific contention that these misconstrued interpretations constitute WP:FRINGE positions as they are generally not accepted or reiterated as true in mainstream reliable sources and that the claims are predicated on circumstance, i.e. disparate facts that a) Palin somewhat supported the KAB, b) Palin lived in Wasilla and c) the KAB may have shortened the commute between Anchorage and Wasilla. The fringe conclusions on this flimsy evidence also ignore other well-known facts, most notably that Palin had nothing to do with KAB project planning or funding and that she ordered studies of alternatives (unlike a dozen gubernatorial predecessors). Fcreid (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that you think there's a problem with WP:V and/or WP:RS and/or WP:UNDUE, but you "agreed" to including it anyway? I'm not even sure what to say about that if that's the case. Those sorts of policies were developed in order to achieve the best possible content, not necessarily to ensure peace between editors. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was simply to be a man of my word. I was surprised even to find KAB characterized as a "Bridge to Nowhere", particularly contemporaneously with the Congressional hearings on Gravina Island and the associated national outrage. However, other editors here did find such mentions. One could easily mount a case questioning the validity of its usage, but I mistakenly thought that disambiguation was the goal of those other editors. My personal decision obviously is irrelevant to the overall consensus for its inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We can disambiguate this matter by simply mentioning that various other bridges have sometimes shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere". Fcreid, being a man of your word, would that be adequate to keep your word?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind my preferences certainly don't trump either policy or consensus but, yes, that would satisfy the goal of disambiguation. I believe that's close to the original seed that was planted a week or two ago, but that seed always seems to blossom into something much larger! Fcreid (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Editor:SB Johnny The consensus to include the KAB was achieved months ago...just as the election was concluding. I have no problem with "...various other bridges have sometimes shared the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere and the KAB is one of them". Or words to that effect. Any mention of "other bridges" needs to name the KAB as one of them not just link to it.--Buster7 (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(← un-indented) Okay, stop right there. Are there reliable sources connecting Ms Palin to this bridge? Reliable sources of people making noteworthy comments about her connection to this bridge? Enough sources to make put this over the bar set by WP:UNDUE? That's all I want to know. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No reliable sources show her proposing the KAB. No sources show her seeking the money. No sources show her saying anything more than "the government is giving us money and we should take it"(more or less). There are reliable sources showing her asking for additional studies on the bridge feasibility. There are reliable sources showing that the ferry option was chosen. There are reliable soiurces for the ferry going forward. There are no reliable sources for the bridge being proposed for commuters from Wasilla (heck -- $10 and an hour longer = unlikely choice, I would suggest). There are reliable sources for McCain opposing all earmarks, not just these. If you view the history of the article, you would note the nature of some of the edits proposed - including claims that Palin was a "young earth creationist" and the like, and that she is a believer in "witchcraft." Might we decide that enough is enough on such (at best) marginal material? Collect (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Johnny. I printed them above. Let me know if you want them again. To be clear, no one is arguing that Palin proposed the KAB. That's not in the text. But she did support the bridge and its earmark (although she later ordered a feasibility study which I have no problem with adding) and was criticized because it was seen as a boondoggle for Wasilla. Collect, please show me your reliable sources that shows Palin supporting the ferry. If true, we should include that as well. The point is to provide truthful information, not to protect Palin from criticism. There are also reliable sources for McCain strenuously opposing this particular earmark that I provided above. If you can't find them, please let me know and I will happily provide them again.GreekParadise (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A side point on good faith but one that is important here because it is the reason, I believe, we will never resolve an issue of the bridge section until Collect starts acting in good faith. We are told to assume good faith in Wikipedia, if at all possible. Sadly, this is not possible here. Collect is in bad faith when he claims above "There are no reliable sources for the bridge being proposed for commuters from Wasilla." I've already shown there ARE several reliable sources including the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, and the Wasilla mayor for the bridge helping commuters from Wasilla. I know Collect is not ignorant of these sources because I have shown them to him, at least 5 times before the Election and at least twice in this current discussion. Please Collect, tell me that you've just forgotten these sources for the 7 times I have shown them to you and I will assume good faith again. But if Collect did not forget these sources and he is saying something he knows to be false in the hope of attracting support from people here who are unaware of these sources, then he is not acting in good faith. Collect, you can argue that the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, and the Mayor of Wasilla are all unreliable, unverifiable sources. That is an (implausible) argument you can make. But to say, as you did, "There are no reliable sources for the bridge being proposed for commuters from Wasilla" shows me that you are not acting in good faith. Collect, I would like a promise from you that I hope will short-circuit this discussion for the future. I would like you to admit you were in error and NEVER again say the falsehood you stated above that I have put in bold. If you insist on saying something that you yourself know to be untrue, we will get nowhere fast as has happened in the past. Now please proceed to tell us why you believe the AP, the primary Alaskan newspaper, and the Mayor of Wasilla are all unreliable and unverifiable. That is the only legitimate argument you can make. Either make the argument or concede the point so we can move on, such as by showing a reliable, verifiable source that makes the point you've been trying to make via your own research. If you find one, I am more than willing to put both views in the article. And if you can't find one, it would be very nice if you would admit that so we can move on. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are quite errant. I will offer you $20,000 for the post where I say the KAB was intended for commuters from Wasilla to Anchorage. I did not find it as a reason in the Congressional Record. I did not find it in any contemporaneous discussion in 2005. I do recall a person claiming Wasilla was next to the KAB, or only twenty miles from Anchorage. I used a map. As for saying you assume bad faith -- welcome. You have said that before and you will again, but the earth still moves <g>. Collect (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? My claim was never that you said the KAB was intended for commuters from Wasilla. The claim was that a reliable source said that the KAB helped commuters from Wasilla. You said "There are no reliable sources for the bridge being proposed for commuters from Wasilla" . I say your statement is false and you knew it or should have known it. Give me $20,000 -- or even $200 -- for showing your statement to be false and I will gladly take the check. Here's the source. I have already mentioned it at least 4 or 5 times to you before Election Day and now twice more on this very talk page: http://community.adn.com/node/131399, quoting the Mayor of Wasilla in an AP/Anchorage Daily News article: "Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor in Wasilla, has said the new $600 million crossing could lower traffic congestion in the fast-growing community. A Federal Highway Administration study shows the project would cut down some area commutes, but could add to others as more people move to the suburbs. The average commuter trip to work for Wasilla residents is 34 minutes, compared to an average of 25 minutes for the rest of the United States, according to 2000 Census figures, the most recent available." My claim is not that YOU admitted the benefits to Wasilla. My claim is that a RELIABLE SOURCE stated the benefits to Wasilla. And therefore your claim that no reliable source had ever said so was false. Let me know if you'll send me a check.GreekParadise (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that you accused me on multiple pages of lying, and refusing to give you cites. As NO cite from 2005 says anything whatseover about Wasilla commuters, I have met my full obligations to show the absurdity of any claim that the KAB was ever intended for Wasilla commuters. THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO WASILLA OMMUTERS. Period. And the claim that Palin "continues" to support something which is officially not going to happen is a wondrous misstatement of fact. Campaign rhetoric from 2008 is not a means of saying what the 2005 intent was. And is not a valid source for asserting what the intent of the KAB was. " But if Collect did not forget these sources and he is saying something he knows to be false in the hope of attracting support from people here who are unaware of these sources, then he is not acting in good faith." is your post and is palpably in bad faith. And I furnished a slew of RS for objective statements as to the intent of the KAB. Care to claim any are just opinions? Collect (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made my point and frankly, I'm glad to see you finally giving me citations. I will read them. I'm also glad to see you're amending your claim. At first you falsely claimed there was no reliable source that showed benefits to Wasilla commuters. Now you say there is no reliable source from 2005 that shows benefit to Wasilla. That may or may not be true. I don't know. But when you make claims like "THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO WASILLA COMMUTERS. Period" without stating what you in fact know to be true: the more modest "I have found no reliable source from 2005 that mentions benefits to Wasilla commuters", you overstate your case and we get nowhere. A good faith response would have been: "OK I was wrong to say there was no reliable source saying the KAB benefits Wasilla, because GP has indeed provided such a source, but I don't happen to see any source from 2005 saying KAB benefits Wasilla" and then you could proceed to argue why you think no source from 2005 is an important distinction and invite me to find a source from 2005. That would be a good-faith concession and would move along the discussion without getting sidetracked. I've never said that KAB was solely provided to help Wasilla. I've only said that some critics claimed Palin's support for KAB was related to the benefits to her home town. And the fact that some critics have said so and some Wasillans believe the KAB will benefit commuters is beyond dispute, right? Even if it happened after 2005? So can we move on? Also, please provide a source for your claim that Palin no longer supports the KAB.GreekParadise (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I gave you cites back in September, I am glad you finally read some. When one speaks of the "purpose" of KAB I would trust you mean the purpose as stated when it was being discussed -- and I have shown "commuter" and "Wasilla" were not in those discussions. That campaign rhetoric sought to connet the KAB with Palin at the expense of facts, is reprehensible. But heck, the desire of some to make sure there is enough "anti=Palin" material, and who actually say so in posts, is sometimes all too evident. I am perfectly happy to have reams of legitimate anti-Palin POV, but simply ask that it be actually factual and not rhetoric. Campaign rhetoric makes for bad BLPs. Collect (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

1) The Wasilla Mayor who praised the KAB's benefit to Wasilla commuters is Republican and a Palin supporter. She was not giving campaign rhetoric; 2) It wouldn't matter if she was. "Campaign rhetoric" is perfectly acceptable in BLP if from a reliable source. You simply say "critics said"; and 3) The argument is not that Palin supported the bridge when it was proposed but that she supported it when she ran for governor a year later. Your new 2005 distinction is irrelevant. I'm glad though you appear to finally admit that a reliable source has argued the KAB benefits Wasilla. Are we clear on that point? I don't want to hear you saying again that no reliable source says the KAB would benefit Wasilla. If you want to say in the future you can't find a reliable source from 2005 that says the KAB would benefit Wasilla, that's fine...and the truth. Now let's move on.GreekParadise (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)GP, would you please list here any additional sources that you think should be cited by the first paragraph of this section of the article? Currently, only the following source is cited:

• Associated Press. “Alaska Seeks Alternative to Bridge Plan”, New York Times (2007-09-23).

It's also been proposed to cite the following additional source for the first paragraph, which is fine with me:

• Stern, Marcus. "Palin defended bridge to 'spinmeisters'", Politico (2008-09-25).

Buster7 has also proposed citing the following two further sources, but I don't agree since neither mentions Palin (and the latter is not a reliable source):

• Hulse, Carl. “Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress”, New York Times (2005-11-17).

• Oman, Maryellen. “Knik Arm Crossing, A Bridge to Nowhere”, Web site of Sierra Club, Alaska Chapter. (undated)

GP, if you would please list here additional sources that we should cite for the first paragraph, that would be much appreciated. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel more sources are necessary, I would do as I've done before -- go back to the footnotes of the Election Day version and pick some of those sources to return to the article -- and/or find additional sources, if necessary. Please alert me as to which facts/sentences you believe are inadequately sourced in the above sources and I will happily find the sources to meet those facts or withdraw any argument that those facts be included in the bio. (Honestly, the reason I'm asking is that last time I found four sources for each point (way back before Election Day), I was told that that was duplicative and unnecessary and most of my hard work was deleted. I'd rather not go through that rigamarole again.) I have no problem with Buster's first source. It's from a reliable source and doesn't need to mention Palin. What it shows is what I've said all along, which is the KAB was called a "Bridge to Nowhere" and its earmark was rejected by Congress along with GIB long before Palin came on the scene.GreekParadise (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GP, I am perfectly happy if the only two sources that we cite in the first paragraph are the two that I indicated above (i.e. 2007 NYT and 2008 Politico). If you agree that those two sources are adequate for the first paragraph, then we can design the first paragraph to track those two sources. However, if you think that other sources ought to be cited in the first paragraph too, then please say so. Otherwise, we ought to just stick with 2007 NYT and 2008 Politico. Any source cited in the first paragraph really ought to mention Palin, or else we get into WP:Synthesis.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Editor:GreekParadise....Please provide a half-dozen or so sources that you feel can fulfill Editor:Ferrylodge's demands. I'm sure he will promptly answer your query about which facts/sentences he feels are inadequetly sourced. He doesn't seem to think that my verifiable, reliable, unbiased sources are good enough! But, even if he doesn't I suggest that, at this point of near concensus, we provide Ferrylodge with what he asks for...verifiable, reliable, unbiased sources. Thanks for constantly redoing what has been done repeatedly.--Buster7 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I'd like to agree on what we include in the first paragraph first. I can't tell you if the entire first paragraph is included in those THREE (not two) sources, but it seems silly for me to do a whole bunch of research and then have it all thrown away. Do you or anyone else here believe there any facts, large or small, in the first paragraph as I have drafted it that are NOT contained in those three sources? If there are no such facts, then we don't have to add more sources. And I don't think these sources have to include Palin. The first paragraph is the background for what's to come. For example, if we were to do a biography on Abraham Lincoln and slavery, one might well want an early paragraph stating that the Constitution contained a 3/5 clause for slavery and that there was an 1820 Missouri Compromise and then say how Lincoln changed the law on slavery. The early paragraph citing the Constitution and the Missouri Compromise would not need to mention Lincoln at all as the events happened before Lincoln came on the scene. They are background to explain what is to come. You certainly are not saying we cannot describe the genesis of the GIB, even though it happened before Palin came on the scene, are you? The background of the bridges is relevant to what Palin did with them next. Synthesis would only occur if the sources did not say what I claim they say. Which brings us back to my original point. Is there any fact/contention in my paragraph as written that you feel is inadequately sourced? If so, please name it and I will gladly source it or, if I can't, drop it. If there is no such fact you believe inadequately sourced by these three sources, please say that too. I do think the third source (the NYT) is a perfect source for the idea that the KAB was, along with GIB, called "Bridges to Nowhere" at the time Congress dropped the earmarks for them and so, I'd like to include it on that point.GreekParadise (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I do think the third source (the NYT) is a perfect source for the idea that the KAB was, along with GIB, called "Bridges to Nowhere"... GP, this is the sleight of hand thing starting again. Just because one source (erroneously) used the phrase "bridges to nowhere" does not mean Congress, the country or ultimately Palin were referring to both bridges whenever they said "Bridge to Nowhere". In other words, you cannot confer attributes of Gravina Island onto KAB simply because you found a source that commingled the two. I will try once more to dissect the history of this in the hope that you will read and understand my analysis. Let's start by looking at events prior to Palin becoming governor in 2006, i.e. the 2005 Congressional hearings on the omnibus spending package that include Gravina Island. An event occurred then that would later become relevant to Palin. In those hearings, the Gravina Island Bridge project was specifically identified by McCain, her future boss in the 2008 presidential race, as an example of pork-barrel spending. He singled out Gravina Island because it cost a lot of money, it serviced very few people and it was added as an earmark to other spending priorities. This earned the Gravina Island project the nickname Bridge to Nowhere nationally. Congress withdrew the earmarks for Gravina Island from that bill (along with a slew of other earmarks). Despite, they provided some subset of funds to Alaska in fiscal year 2007 as part of their general transportation funds. Now stop! Forget what the NY Times or the Sierra Club wrote about the Knik Arm bridge project that was in the same funding bill... the important thing to bring forward is that McCain named Gravina Island as a pork-barrel project. He never mentioned Knik Arm. As a reminder of where we are in time, Palin was still a small-town mayor then and had nothing to do with either project or anything else in that bill, but Gravina Island will ultimately become relevant. Fast-forward to Palin's 2006 run for Governor of Alaska, during which she campaigned on a "build the bridge" platform (referring to Gravina Island specifically as the Bridge to Nowhere) to audiences, at least, the residents of Ketchikan. Palin wins the governor's seat and takes office in early 2007, but she withdraws support for building Gravina Island in her first year as governor. At that time, the "thanks, but no thanks" motto was somehow incubated, somewhat flying the face of reality considering that Alaska received (and used) a subset of funds provided during FY07. We're now in the 2008 campaign and her grand entrance onto the national stage, where she reiterates the "thanks, but no thanks" speech. That seems to put her in lockstep with her partner in the race. However, analysts quickly show where she technically did withdraw support for the "Bridge to Nowhere", she did supports its construction during her campaign, and she did use the funds in her tenure as governor, i.e. she never actually "did" a "no thanks" for the money. Okay, there's the "Bridge to Nowhere" story... can you show me where I've missed the places where Knik Arm fits into that? Fcreid (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fcried, it's not ONE source (the NYT), but 5,000 sources: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22bridge+to+nowhere%22+%22knik+arm%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8. I never claimed that Palin personally called the KAB a "Bridge to Nowhere". I claimed that others did. I'm trying to uncommingle the two bridges. The omnibus spending package DID include KAB, along with GIB. And McCain opposed both bridges. See http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html and http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S9400&dbname=2005_record. McCain singled out Gravina AND Knik Arm (and others) as pork-barrel spending, with McCain derisively talking about the proposed name of the Knik Arm Bridge as "Don Young's Way." You're simply incorrect to say McCain "never mentioned Knik Arm" and I have the Congressional Record to prove it. But you're right that "thanks but no thanks" refers to GIB not KAB. I agree that GIB is more important to the Palin story and plays a major role while KAB plays a minor role because she never said "no thanks" to KAB. She just said "thanks" to KAB (contradicting MCain's stance on pork barrel spending.). Please review my sources (and even some of Collect's). You may be surprised to learn how many times the KAB was called the Bridge to Nowhere" and how strenuously McCain opposed it along with GIB.GreekParadise (talk)

I meant to state that McCain never referred to Knik Arm as a bridge to nowhere, but that was probably apparent from context. Of course he opposed a Knik Arm earmark. He opposed all earmarks, including many in that same bill. While that fact may be interesting (even admirable) to some, it has nothing to do with Palin. She never proposed or approved any earmark, and the transportation funds (technically, no longer earmarks) were awarded to Alaska prior to her tenure as governor. This is exactly the place where this has become muddled time and time again. The fact that others rarely referred to Knik Arm as a bridge to nowhere, either contemporaneously or during campaign rhetoric, does not change the fact that McCain's "Bridge to Nowhere" was Gravina Island, and Palin's "thanks, but no thanks" comments related solely to that. We can't now arbitrarily saddle Palin with the responsibility for the Knik Arm earmark any more than the Teapot Museum earmark or for any earmark that was in spending packages within Congress while she was still the Mayor of Wasilla! Again, it's all about relevance. Palin's and McCain's "Bridge to Nowhere" was Gravina Island, and that is the only point where Palin has notability on that spending bill. Fcreid (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Given KAB has some importance but GIB much more importance, I originally proposed a sentence or two on KAB with the remainder in a footnote, while four paragraphs would be on GIB. My short version on KAB was then expanded by some who want lots of detail on Knik Arm in the text. And I say, if you want the detail, fine, include both sides and we'll put it back to the way it was Election Day. And thus we come full circle.GreekParadise (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as you saw I proposed a draft introductory paragraph that acknowledged Knik Arm was in the same spending bill, identified the exact costs associated with Knik Arm and also noted that the earmark was removed from the bill. I mistakenly thought that was what you wanted, but then began another litany of railing against the Don Young Gang, whales becoming extinct as a result and whatever else... all having ZERO to do with Palin. Apparently, compromise is not in the offing on this. Fcreid (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm sick of the endless rehashing of the KAB. GP, please offer some evidence it was on a similar order of significance as the GIB in either the 2008 campaign or anything else. Why does it belong in a biography of Sarah Palin? Is it on the same order of magnitude as roads to Nome or Juneau, the Pebble or Kensington Mines, or the Instate Bullet Line? Or any of multitudes of infrastructure projects that have been proposed or rehashed during Palin's administration? All you've ever offered is some AP campaign hit piece that attempted to draw a connection between KAB and Wasilla with no supporting evidence. The same old campaign talking points are tiresome. Kelly ^hi! 06:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Fcreid. Very clear and precise and, I'm sure, factual. The thing is that as your story progressed thru its stages, other reflections (other stories) on the events were made and other stories were being written, read, and believed. Where Knik Arm "fits in" is that it did become co-mingled with Palin and McCain. Campaign rhetoric? Most likely. These "other stories" became solidified in the publics collective mindset and they became convinced that there were two Bridges to Nowhere. Everybody? No. But enough to create the sources that show there was an ongoing verifiable (etc.) conversation sweeping both campaigns related to both bridges. One of those conversations happened right here at Wikipedia during the campaign.

I thought we were getting close to a settlememt of contention here with the different versions, all of which mentioned Kwik Arm. But, now, with the focus on sources, we have again degenerated into polorized groups. Each just as tired of the others talking points!!! As KC has pointed out campaign rhetoric is allowable if phrased correctly.

? to Ed:GP...can we proceed with just the two sources that Ed:Fl suggests. Or do you, like I, fear that our "lack of sources" will be used to remove Kwik Arm from mention in the weeks to come??--Buster7 (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster, and fully concur. I'm not oblivious to the campaign rhetoric of last September and October. (We were in the trenches alongside each other here!) Much to my chagrin, I also understand that "truth" and "verifiability" are very different things in Wikipedia-world. I think that was the point being made by SB Johnny above, i.e. whether the frequency or the substance in these campaign "hit-pieces" that "confuggled" the Knik Arm and Gravina Island projects actually rose to the level of notability for inclusion in this biography. My obvious contention is that they did not. I don't devour the daily news as some here do, but I personally don't recall Knik Arm ever being mentioned outside of this talk page (and in references excavated solely for that purpose). I'm also pretty sure it was never mentioned in any major television outlet during the campaign. I think there are some sources and Palin detractors that would have very much liked for "Bridges to Nowhere" to gain traction, I think the record shows that never happened (at least from the evidence that's been presented here). I yield the floor. Fcreid (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) We already have specific campaign articles. Including all campaign rhetoric of whatver value is simply not needed in a BLP, especially when the claims are contentious (that Palin "continues" to support a project which has been officially halted, that the KAB in 2005 was intended to help Wasilla commuters, even though the proposal dates to the early 50s and before -- when the population of Wasilla was? 97. [12] Yep -- I bet 2000 of those 97 people commuted to Anchorage. 1960? Too small to hit the published census as near as I can tell. By 1980 (long after KAB was proposed) it was up to 1,559 population. As an argument that its commuters would use the KAP, not very strong. Commuters? [13] "The number of commuters using MASCOT's bus service to get to Anchorage jumped to 66 each day in September on average from 35 a year earlier." For the entire Mat-Su valley. And this is in 2008. More on "commuters" from [14] "Neither Eagle River nor the Matanuska-Susitna Valley is developing at a density that would support or foster any mode of transit. Such low densities would make successful transit or commuter rail development difficult." Is the current traffic bad? "Commuters from Wasilla and Eagle River experience nearly free-flow conditions on the freeway segment of the corridor (east of Bragaw Street)." All of which seems to bolster the position that the KAB was never intended for "commuters" at all in any incarnation. So what did the 2005 article say? [15] ""Basically what it would do is access hundreds of square miles of agricultural land for development," Boutin said. " Right again -- not a word about "commuters." Not a word about "Wasilla." [16] "The bridge would span Knik Arm — part of the Cook Inlet — and link Anchorage with Port McKenzie and the remote Mat-Su Borough. The project is estimated at $600 million total." Not a word about "commuters." Not a word about "Wasilla." Heck -- let's even use "Salon" [17] "The other span, nicknamed "Don Young's Way" would cross an inlet, connecting Anchorage to a rural port. " No commuter. No Wasilla. Even in Salon. ADN says [18] " For example, would people move from within Mat-Su, swapping homes in Wasilla for new ones at Point MacKenzie? Or would most new residents come from places like Anchorage attracted by bigger lots and cheaper homes?" Which implies the KAB would be a negative for Wasilla. Collect (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're in the OR and synthesis mode, and beyond the fact that a bridge crossing across Cook Inlet will ultimately be mandated to deal with Anchorage expansion (like it or not), many are also neglecting the fact that the Valley is Anchorage's breadbasket (and one of the most fertile places in the world with its extended daylight and growing seasons). Produce and livestock could move seamlessly from Mat-Su to Anchorage, which was probably the original intent of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge in the 50s and remains a primary benefit even today. Fcreid (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another break

I think the best thing to do at this stage is to just line out the arguments on either side simply, briefly, and clearly, and I'll request eyes again on the BLP board. The questions are:

1. Does the KAB belong on this article? I.e., the other bridge is included because it's felt that it plays a large role in her career. Does this pass the bar of UNDUE?
2. Are there reliable sources that establish the KAB issue as important to understanding Sarah Palin? That is the only criteria that matters when determining if this passes the bar of UNDUE.

A brief recap would be very helpful for outside eyes... the discussion above has become very hard to read and is verging on getting personal. Let's get back to discussing the article, not the editors of the article. GreekParadise: please re-list all of the sources you want to use for this below as well, with minimal annotation please. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided the brief recap below at the same time as SB_Johnny was writing the above. The sources I would want to use would be the sources used earlier that were removed e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=248910823 or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=242101253 or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=239274597 or perhaps some other version. If someone claims that anything I've written is unsourced, please let me know and I will be happy to re-provide my source (or, if I cannot, no longer request the fact be included in the bio). That is how I believe we can move forward. If folks agree that everything I've said is well sourced, we can move on to discuss UNDUE and other issues. Does anyone still dispute any of the facts on the KAB that I've cited below? Are there any disputed and/or unsourced facts remaining? If so, what are they?GreekParadise (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Regroup and Try Again

Before we can agree on what to include, we have to agree on some basic facts. Can everyone agree:

1) While the GIB was the main target of the "Bridge to Nowhere", the KAB was also called the "Bridge to Nowhere" too to a lesser extent (perhaps 40% as often but by thousands of commentators and reliable sources).

2) McCain publicly condemned both bridge proposals in the omnibus spending bill of 2005 as wasteful earmarks/pork-barrel spending. Palin in 2006 supported both bridges, but in 2007, changed her mind on GIB.

3) "Thanks but no thanks" refers to GIB and not KAB. Palin changed her mind on GIB. (If she has changed her mind on building KAB, I'd like to see a source.)

4) Some critics claimed Palin's support for KAB was based on its benefits to Wasilla. Others say the proposed KAB and/or Palin's support for it has to do with development outside Wasilla.

Do we agree on these facts?

If so, can we agree:

1) that GIB should have a much longer mention than KAB -- an entire section of four or five paragraphs for GIB while only a sentence or two or three for KAB; and

2) that any other "Bridges to Nowhere" are irrelevant to the Palin bio?

GreekParadise (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My responses: 1) False. Neither Palin nor McCain ever referred to Knik Arm as the "Bridge to Nowhere", which is all that matters in the Palin biography. 2) Half true. McCain opposed every earmark in that same bill. Regardless, that has nothing to do with Palin. 3) True. Her opinion on KAB is irrelevant, unless you also want to show her position on all extant Alaska transportation projects. They just finished a road that cost double what Knik Arm bridge would have cost in 2005 dollars. 4) Some is WP:WEASEL. This was a fringe position held by a tiny handful of Palin-bashers and other nut-cases, one of whom claimed the bridge would cause the extinction of whales in the same article. Fcreid (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My responses: 1) I think it can be shown without a doubt that the KAB was called a "Bridge to nowhere" by some people. 2) Yes, I think you are right. 3) Yes, correct. 4) Perhaps, but probably likely. But some additional notes: 1) While the KAB may have been called a "bridge to nowhere", I think it has been shown that it is not the "bridge to nowhere" of the campaign fame, noted in #3. 2) While this is true, to single out McCain seems like a stretch. McCain opposed all earmarks, and other senators opposed the bridge to nowhere earmarks. It seems like an attempt to push a point of view that McCain was hypocritical for picking Palin (who had approved of the earmarks at one time) for his VP. McCain's views on the issue just are not relevant to Palin's bio. 3) Yes, this is one of the main points within the bridge section, and should be. 4) I guess I'm still not sold on the purpose of this. The Gravina Island bridge seems to be the only one that has gotten major play. While there has been some coverage of the KAB, I'm not positive that it has relevance on an overall biography of Palin. I think it might be helpful to the reader to note that the KAB was sometimes called a "Bridge to Nowhere", for clarification and explanation, but to make it into a major issue seems like undue weight. The major criticism Palin received regarding this issue was the apparant 'sketchiness' of the "thanks, but no thanks" line she used in her stump speeches. Just because we have information about something, does not mean we should automatically include it in a general biography. That's why I believe, at this point, that the section should focus on the GIB, with a simple note about the KAB for the readers' benefit and clarity. Guess that's it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Verifiably correct per WP:RS sources, e.g. Seattle Times ( 'The Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges have been labeled "bridges to nowhere" by critics of their hefty price tags' ) and the NYT article cited in the SP article version linked by GP above. Fcreid is mistaken: what Palin or McCain may or may not have called the KAB is not "all that matters". See WP:BLP.

2) First sentence verifiably correct, as also is Fcreid's observation. Second sentence verifiably correct.

3) Verifiably correct.

4) I don't have the knowledge to comment on this one. Is it verified in on of GP's sources?

I agree with GP that the main emphasis should be on GIB, that KAB should receive less weight, and that other so-called "bridges to nowhere" are too marginal for inclusion. Writegeist (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fcried, I have no problem with including that McCain opposed every earmark in the bill. The purpose of including it is to show this McCain/Palin disagreement on earmarks. It can be shown briefly in a footnote. But I agree with everyone that KAB is minor compared to GIB which is why I originally proposed a shorter version with most everything in a footnote. It's only when other ("pro-Palin") editors insisted on including more information that was very supportive of Knik Arm I insisted that information be complete with criticism as well. If you look at my initial draft, I wrote this and suggested that additional facts about the KAB be placed in the footnote:

• (Editor:GreekParadise; April 11 version, reintroduced on April 13th....)

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge, received an additional $231 million in earmarks and more rarely shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

That's the draft I wrote way up above.

To Ali'i, I appreciate your comment and mostly agree with you, except I do think it's relevant to show in a Palin bio where she and McCain disagreed, particularly when she was often praised by McCain as being opposed to earmarks. If you believe this fact should be in the campaign section rather than the bridge section, I'm OK with that. As for 4), I agree it's minor and would only put this fact in a footnote. (Writegeist, the first part is verified here: http://community.adn.com/node/131399. The second part Collect says he can verify). But it's true that there are critics that complained during the campaign about Palin's support of KAB as a "bridge to her hometown of Wasilla" and I think that's worthy at least of being placed in a footnote.

I'm happy to say that I think we have all agreed the above four facts are true. What we do with them is a different story. Including McCain and Wasilla may or may not be undue weight, but at least we can all agree these facts are facts and then take our arguments from there. Are there any other facts that anyone else may want to include on KAB? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Once we get the universe of relevant and truthful facts on KAB, we can whittle them down.GreekParadise (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This notion that Palin's support for Knik Arm was predicated on proximity of the northern landing to Wasilla is beyond WP:FRINGE and heads into WP:CONSPIRACY realm. It's poorly supported by reliable sources (as far as I can tell, the one source you provided also included silly stuff about whales going extinct as a result of construction, right?). It's not even a good conspiracy, as it can't adjust to unassailable fact, such as bridge planning occurred before she was born, that it's not particularly convenient to Wasilla in comparison to other towns it would server, that Palin ordered studies of alternatives to the bridge, that the length of a bridge project spans years, that the bridge connects Anchorage to its largest produce region, etc. Moreover, what I've seen doesn't even attempt to rationalize any direct benefit to Palin, e.g. that her goal is to pad Wasilla developers' pockets, shorten her daily commute, etc. (BTW, I'm sure you know that state governors don't usually have much trouble getting through traffic if they're in a hurry to be somewhere!) Anyway, unless we can provide sources with some more damning fact than "well, Palin lives in Wasilla", I believe we need to rethink our rationale for including this. It just doesn't seem notable, either at its core or in the degree of attention it received. Fcreid (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

@Ed:GP....Is it OK if I "tag" the para above ---EDitor:Greek Paradise, April 13th version (presented earlier on March ___th(?)????....Just so editors can keep track of our preferences. Can you provide the previous date?--Buster7 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no particular problem with the paragraph from GP in bold above. Someone (FL?) noted, and I agree, that the phrase "more rarely shared" is a incorrect quantitative comparison. That needs to be reworded to eliminate the comparison and implied equivalency to Gravina Island, so we don't again have to deal with the faulty syllogistic conclusions that erroneously convey issues relevant only to Gravina Island. Is that the extent of a Knik Arm mention that is desired for this biography? Fcreid (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "infrequently shared" or "occasionally shared"...<humor> We could try "every once in a blue moon shared" but that might be too wordy. "Hardly ever shared" might fit the connotation some would prefer. "Intermittently shared" sounds like a weather or traffic report while "sharingly sprinkeled here and there" makes me think of chocolate cake. "every now and then shared" or "every once in a while shared" are possibilities but don't quite make it either. Can we make something like "shared only when the cows come home" work?? That might add a more folksy, rural flavor to the comment.</humor>...Ive always had trouble with "more rarely shared" but didn't want to upset the applecart, so to speak. (My humorous attempts are presented as encouragement only.)--Buster7 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to state, Knik Arm has occasionally been mistakenly called a "bridge to nowhere", but I fear that would raise ire on the point, eh? :) Perhaps just breaking into two separate sentences as not to create the connection between the two. Fcreid (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Buster, that was actually my April 11 version :-) but you can tag it any way you like. I'm very glad that Fcried has no particular problem with my paragraph. I consider that real success and I have no problem changing the phrase "more rarely shared." I like Buster's "occasionally shared" or even "on occasion shared" (which sounds less). Or we could say some critics of the Knik Arm Bridge also called it a "bridge to nowhere" (which is undoubtedly true). If we can get the main text done and argue about the Wasilla connection in a footnote, I think we'll solve a good deal of the problem. (By the way, I don't need to put the critics accuse Palin in a footnote..I would simply note int he footnote that many, including the Wasilla mayor, have touted the bridge for helping some commuters in the Wasilla area and then cite the AP article. But let's get the main text done first.) If I change "more rarely" to "on occasion", do we have (except for the footnote)...at long last...gasp...an agreement? ***putting champaign on ice but not uncorking yet***GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to avoid introducing any language that criticizes Knik Arm here, as we'd again be forking off into a realm that isn't relevant to Palin, GP. Knik Arm is not and will never be her "bridge to nowhere" of notability. I thought the purpose was of this whole ordeal was to clarify that Knik Arm was occasionally referred to as a "bridge to nowhere" and not to introduce it as relevant to her, because nothing as yet has established that relevance. As far as the Wasilla mayor's belief that Knik Arm may shorten the commute from Achorage to Wasilla, I don't see where that has anything to do with Palin, unless the Wasilla mayor also made some connection to her that I'm not aware, e.g. that she and Palin have communicated directly that Knik Arm would benefit Wasilla or something? Otherwise, we're obviously implying something (i.e Palin's reason for supporting Knik Arm) that isn't whatsoever supported by reliable sources. Fcreid (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• ED:GP's latest 4/13 version w/"more rarely" changed to "occasionally:

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge, received an additional $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

I can support that as an introductory paragraph to the "Bridge to Nowhere" section, as long as the mention of Knik Arm is not misconstrued as an opportunity for further discussion on Knik Arm in the paragraphs that follow. If this is the extent of a Knik Arm mention in this biography, let's make the change. If there is an intent to use that to expand the discussion of Knik Arm (criticisms of the project itself, aspersions to Palin's role, etc.), then we must first establish those as reliably sourced as well as relevant to this article. Fcreid (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good other than the fact some might read "additional" to mean that KAB had an earlier appropriation. I did not actually find one of any note, and I doubt that people will "deduct" the 231 from the 223 to assume the GIB was at negative 8 million <g>. Collect (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with that. Removing the "an additional" and changing it to read "received $231 million" does not change the meaning and eliminates the point of confusion. Fcreid (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we agreed then? At least on the main text? (Fcried, I will want to cite the AP/ADN article and the Wasilla Mayor in the footnote, but let's take this step by step.) I do not intend to mention Knik Arm any more in the main text. Thus the first paragraph would read as follows:

"Bridge to Nowhere"

Main article: Gravina Island Bridge

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge received $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

If everyone is in agreement, I will report to KillerChihuaha and ask permission to change it. I will then document everything in the first paragraph with footnotes to sources (using the sources we talked about and others from those used before Election Day if there remains any unsourced fact). We may still disagree on these footnotes and sources--I will want to explain a little about KAB in the footnote--but just agreeing on this main text will be a major step forward.

If you DO NOT AGREE with this compromise first paragraph, please speak now or forever hold your peace. We all retain the rights to quibble over the footnotes, sources, caption, and other paragraphs of this section (though I'm OK with the second and third paragraphs as is). If I hear nothing opposing this in 48 hours, I will write KC and ask permission to make the change to the first paragraph.GreekParadise (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Wikilinks and sources ought to be included:

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge received $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/us/23bridge.html?n=Top/News/U.S./U.S.%20States,%20Territories%20and%20Possessions/Alaska|date=September 23, 2007|publisher=New York Times |title= Alaska Seeks Alternative to Bridge Plan|author=Associated Press|accessdate=April 3, 2009}}</ref>

Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously, it will include wikilinks and sources. I'm just trying to find an agreement on language before we add that.GreekParadise (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this sentence: "In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge received $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname" is confusing, seems out of place, and leaves me wondering what on earth it has to do with Sarah Palin. In fact, I wonder what this entire paragraph has to do with Sarah Palin, as would anybody who hasn't been privy to the arcane arguments here. There is entirely too much space taken up with these bridges. Wouldn't something like the example below be more to the point, communicating the facts essential to Palin without dredging up minutiae that only Palin-Wars veterans would understand?

• Editor:Paul version;

In 2005, a transportation bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. When Sarah Palin was named as John McCain's running mate, one of the lines she used in her stump speeches was that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere." It turned out that Palin had campaigned for building the bridge when running for governor in 2006, saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project [...] into something that's so negative." As governor, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge, but the damage had been done, and opponents during the Presidential campaign accused her of flip-flopping and being very selective in her recollection of her involvement with the bridge.

Though there are a lot of mind-numbing details, the only reason any bridge is in this biography is because of the story related in the above paragraph. Nothing else is needed. And, let's keep the picture of Palin holding up the t-shirt to illustrate this one paragraph. Respectfully, --Paul (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly endorse your succinct paragraph to replace the entire "Bridge to Nowhere" section, Paul. Your paragraph hits dead center on the points relevant and accurate with respect to Palin, and the only ones that will be memorable in time. Fcreid (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. As Fcried say, simple, straight forward and to the point. It seems to cover everything about the BTN as it specificly relates to Palin, giving all of the relevent points without delving into details which would be better suited to the bridge articles. I too would support this for the entire bridge section. If, however, concensus favors the previous paragraph (above) as an opening to a much longer section, then I think perhaps a slight mention of the KAB's intended purpose should be included to offset the GIB's population ratio. (A town of 14,000 connecting to its only airport on an island of 50. Compared to The KAB, connecting a population of 280,000 to a population of 86000. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en Not to mention the the opening up of land area and decreased transportation costs to all areas north, etc...) However, I don't think all of this lengthy info belongs in this article. To be clear, I still prefer Paul's paragraph as the most concise, but if we end up using the one at the top of this subsection, then I would simply add Anchorage and the Mat-Su to the third line, to read: In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge connecting Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Knik Arm Bridge received $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. , and leave out any footnotes as that would seem to cover it. Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

@ EDitor: Zaereth...Just to be sure, is the following para what you suggest?....or did you want to leave Editor:Paul's as is, and add the sentence you suggest to one of the others?--Buster7 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Editor:Paul's version W/ Editor:Zaereths additon from above:

In 2005, a transportation bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge connecting Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Knik Arm Bridge received $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. After Sarah Palin was named as John McCain's running mate, one of the lines she used in her stump speeches was that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere." It turned out that Palin had campaigned for building the bridge when running for governor in 2006, saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project [...] into something that's so negative." As governor, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge, but the damage had been done, and opponents during the Presidential campaign accused her of flip-flopping and being very selective in her recollection of her involvement with the bridge.

I'd be happy to put all these facts in a footnote, Zaereth, but if you want it in the main text, we should also include the "alternate route to Wasilla" Let's face it, that's the first town you hit in the Mat-Su Borough once you cross the other side of the bridge and it was cited by the Wasilla Mayor. I'd be happy with connecting Anchorage to the Mat-Su Borough and providing an alternate commuting route to WasillaGreekParadise (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As for Paul's suggestion, I'm generally fine with the facts he included and I could rework the other paragraphs to include his language, but the simple version simply excludes too many relevant facts: no mention of the multi-million-dollar Road to Nowhere; the brief disambiguation of the KAB we worked so hard to agree on; no mention of Congress withdrawing the earmark; or McCain's being one of the main leaders in opposition to it; or the contradiction between McCain's history of opposing earmarks and Palin supporting them.

I fear this whole discussion is rapidly becoming a BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. If editors as opposed as Collect and Fcried and I can agree and the whole thing is still trashed, this is pointless. There are many cutesy facts in the main Palin bio that I find a ridiculous waste of bio space, particularly in the early years (i.e. track star and basketball player, tip jar as mayor, "why she first ran for office") but I have gone by the philosophy, "if in doubt, leave it in," understanding that these details were important to some wiki-editor. If the consensus becomes "if in doubt, we leave it out," then I will propose cuts to about 70% of the Palin bio. I believe Palin's official and controversial actions as Governor (including especially the Road to Nowhere) and her contradictions with her running mate (particularly on earmarks, one of McCain's signature issues) to be far more important than her high school track career. The Bridge to Nowhere and the Road to Nowhere and even the KAB were the subject of much criticism and argument and hundreds of articles of investigative journalism. Her high school track career pales in relative importance.

I BELIEVE UNLESS YOU INCLUDE WHAT BOTH SIDES WANT, WE ARE HOPELESSLY DEADLOCKED. Even if I were to agree to delete a whole host of controversial material like the Road to Nowhere or the KAB, some editor would put it back. (How do you think it got there in the first place? It wasn't me.) Most all of the anti-Palin editors have deserted the scene now and I have scrupulously avoiding alerting them. But perhaps I should. Because without their agreement and/or a neutral POV with both sides represented, this whole enterprise is pointless. If and when Palin runs for office again, they'll come back and we're back to square one.GreekParadise (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor GreekParadise writes:

... but the simple version simply excludes too many relevant facts: no mention of the multi-million-dollar Road to Nowhere; the brief disambiguation of the KAB we worked so hard to agree on; no mention of Congress withdrawing the earmark; or McCain's being one of the main leaders in opposition to it; or the contradiction between McCain's history of opposing earmarks and Palin supporting them.

But these aren't relevant facts, they are just political rhetoric. The relevant facts to this biography are that "The Bridge to Nowhere" was politically radioactive, and when Palin tried to paint herself as pure-as-snow anti-pork she was found to be fibbing. All the rest of is it just continuing the arguments from last Fall, which is a particularly useless waste of time.

I find this argument quite ironic. If the election was being fought today, The Bridge to Nowhere would be applauded as an investment in our infrastructure and future that will create jobs today. When you compare this view of Federal spending to the arguments of last October, you see just how ephemeral and unimportant all of that arguing really was. Why would we want to continue the political campaigns of the past in this BLP today? I made my suggestion to allow folks to get on with their lives. The argument about one paragraph has gone on for six weeks without agreement. There are three more paragraphs. This will never end. Boil it down to its essence, and let's be done with it.--Paul (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In sum, I see only four solutions:

1) We could have two Sarah Palin articles, one written by supporters (who will conveniently leave out the pro-Palin facts) and one written by opponents (who will conveniently leave out the anti-Palin facts), declare that wikipedia editors could not reach agreement, slap a bias tag on both, and be done with it.

2) We return to the Election Day Consensus, agreed on between 30+ pro- and anti-Palin editors after 100 talk pages of discussions lasting 10,000 hours. We'd require a 3/4 vote to change this one-time consensus of more than 10 editors and only after allowing "electioneering" by both sides for a week.

3) We have a cutting orgy. You remove the controversial things Palin has done, like the Road to Nowhere. I take a hatchet to the early life and mayoral section and much of the rest of the article with the goal of reducing length 70%. True we'll lose a lot of content, but it will all be in the subarticles.

4) (Obviously my preferred solution) We leave in the relevant, verifiable material of both sides, even if it's a bit longer than some would like so as to placate all sides but scrupulously tighten to avoid redundancy and say as many facts as we can with as few words as we can.

But let's pick a solution now. I think it silly to continue any longer trying to compromise the uncompromisable. We're going in circles here. And we all have more important things to do.GreekParadise (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncle!--Buster7 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a BLP is to be a biography. Removing all her life details so that you can have campaign material which is already in other WP articles is absurd. And telling folks that you want them to solicit (canvass?) others who will agree with you is more absurd. [19] So much for "scrupulously avoiding alerting" editors who you feel favor your POV when you ask another person to do the task <g>. Where material is covered in other articles in depth, there is no valid reason to cover them in depth in the BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

@Collect. Please be clear who you are talking to above. And dont use MY talk to make your point! You have lifted stuff from my talk page before without designating your intended editor. Be clear to your fellow editors what you mean by the above and who you are talking to.. If we were going to canvas we would have done it long ago. No one here is a "rookie".--Buster7 (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, to answer Buster's question, no, I like Paul's paragraph as it was written, without the change, although I don't see that it hurts it any with it. The change I was recommending was to the paragraph at the top of this subsection, which only consists of adding a location to give some sort of orientation. To GP, you may be under the assumption that all of us here are either supporters or detractors of Palin, but I can assure you that with me this is not the case. Consider me if you will a supporter of the KAB, (and ultimately a supporter of Alaska), who keeps little thought about how information affects her politically. (I do however take somewhat of a hardline stance against the exploitation of her children for these purposes, and have spoken rather adamantly regarding some of the more outlandish statements against her, but mainly because it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous.) Purporting that the KAB's purpose is only to serve Wasilla is ridiculous and unnecessary to this article, and opens the door for a whole slew non-relevent information as it pertains to Palin. (This analagous to the Dogfight article, where someone included a source that said the term originated because WWI pilots had to switch their engines on andoff during battle. Utterly ridiculous, because WWI planes did not have starters.) The only thing I can see relevent to Palin regarding these bridges is the "Thanks but no thanks" speech, which was only referring to one bridge. I think Paul's paragraph, unchanged, covers that quite effectively without, (no offense intended to anybody), a boring tendency toward wordiness. Zaereth (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur completely. And yes, the assertion about the KAB being an alternate route to Wasilla is indeed ridiculous. A look at a map shows Wasilla far away at the other end of the Cook Inlet. Kelly ^hi! 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been frustratingly ridiculous, Kelly. I bet you could go back nearly a century and find evidence of prospectors pondering how nice it would be to avoid the two-day mule trek around Cook Inlet (and probably with counterargument from some Anchorage residents who felt such a bridge would bring in the riffraff from the overland route! :) Was Anchorage built on the "wrong" side of the inlet? Maybe, and Alaska residents and politicians have been looking for a way to expand in that direction for at least 50 years. Now, in the course of a few months, we're painting a Knik Arm crossing as Palin's "bad" idea? It's just silly. Fcreid (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

True, this bridge has been talked about since my Grandfather lived here back in World War II, not to mention the proposed Fire Island Bridge, and a bridge across Turnagain Arm, (neither of which would have the economic benefit of the KAB in my own opinion). Interestingly enough the Anchorage mayoral candidates had quite a discussion about the KAB during a debate on local talk radio a couple of days ago, talking about the drawbacks and benefits, and even suggested moving the International Airport over there to open up the land over here. But this is getting off topic, as this bridge section usually does. I think its important that the subject of this article doesn't get lost in all the irrelevant details. Zaereth (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there are some thorny issues to be resolved, for sure... Elmendorf's large chunk of property among them! A lot of cities suffered the same "lack of urban planning" problems in their expansion, but jeez... imagine if New York or Boston were constrained from building bridges to address their expansion! Anyway, we blog, because as you rightfully pointed out, none of this has even the least to do with the subject of this article. Fcreid (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as editors, I think that's the rather cold way we need to think about her, not the Good or Bad Sarah Palin, but merely the subject. Zaereth (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Palin continues to this day support federal money for the KAB. McCain condemns the KAB and has done so since 2005. Thousands of commentators have noted this contradiction and called the KAB a "Bridge to Nowhere." Indeed, for every ten articles on Palin calling the GIB a "Bridge to Nowhere," http://www.google.com/search?q=%22palin%22+%22bridge+to+nowhere%22+%22gravina+island%22&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS there are more than four on Palin calling the KAB a "Bridge to Nowhere" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22palin%22+%22bridge+to+nowhere%22+%22knik+arm%22&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS That's not my opinion. That's Google. The KAB belongs here, if only to clarify the difference between the KAB and the GIB. Since when, are we against clarification to spell out something that is likely to be extremely confusing to the people who come to wikipedia seeking information? Could someone please explain why you would have a goal to confuse readers? Why do you want this? How does this help wikipedia? Or, for that matter, Palin or the KAB? GreekParadise (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

GreekParadise, I do not believe your Google searches prove what you suggest they prove. A search for "palin" "bridge to nowhere" "knik arm" could very well return the following sentence: While the Gravina Island Bridge was popularly called the bridge to nowhere, no one ever uses that description for the kink arm bridge. Additionally, Google searches are not limited to reliable sources. It is very misleading to commingle the two bridges this way.--Paul (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa... please defend this statement with sources: "McCain condemns the KAB and has done so since 2005." I believe you may be confusing McCain's condemnation of all earmarks with some illusion that he's anti-progress. I doubt he could care whatsoever if Alaska were to build KAB with its own revenue based on its own state spending priorities. Do you have evidence to the contrary? You just hit the nail on the head again, GP... this is the GIB/KAB confusion we've suffered with for six months! Fcreid (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Are you OK with "McCain condemns federal earmarks for the KAB and has done so since 2005"? That's the point. You're right it's not that McCain cares whether this or that bridge is built so much as he doesn't want federal funds to do it. I thought I made that distinction clear elsewhere and it certainly should be clear in the text. McCain hates earmarks. Palin often loves them and has loved them with both Alaska bridges. That's my point and it doesn't have to be a complicated one.GreekParadise (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

McCain opposes federal earmarks for anything, so this is hardly news. What makes his opposition to earmarks for this bridge any more notable than his opposition to earmarks for a nursing home, a research study or anything else? More importantly, what makes any of that relevant to Palin? Did she request this earmark he opposed? No. Has she stated KAB construction funding must come earmark? No. Is she an avid proponent of building KAB in the first place? No. What is the relevance on this picayune point?! I, and I suspect others, could probably move towards a collective resolution if I understood clearly the point of relevance to Palin with respect to Knik Arm. Instead of a presenting your full research, simply state your basic premise(s) in 25- or 50-word summary paragraph. There's no need for sources or quotes--just state what it is about Knik Arm you think is significant and relevant to Palin's biography. I will say in advance that if your assertion relies on suspending disbelief and equating Knik Arm to Gravina Island as symbolic of wasteful spending, the sources simply don't support that premise. If your assertion is that Knik Arm may ultimately pad the bank accounts of some already rich and well-known characters in Alaska (Stevens, Murkowski et al) who wisely bought up land on the north landing zone, the sources do support your premise, but that has nothing to do with the subject of this article (and, moreover, welcome to capitalism! :) If your contention is that Palin is a hypocrite simply by virtue of her accepting any federal funds for any Alaska infrastructure projects, you will have a hard row to hoe to make that case (and she wouldn't be governor very long if she rejected such funds). If your contention is that Palin and McCain were incongruous partners in the 2008 presidential campaign because of wide philosophical divergence on federal spending, there may be a case to make, but we will need far more examples of that dichotomy before WP-world is the one to break that story. Even when one is just throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks, you first have to aim for the wall! Fcreid (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fcried, Collect, and I had a deal on the first paragraph, a compromise where I did most of the compromising. How about we put that it -- footnotes aside for now -- and finish off the rest of the section? See how it looks. You might find it's actually harmless to accurately explain to a reader the differences between the two bridges.GreekParadise (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you show me a current diff where the three of us have an agreement? Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's what you originally agreed to above, Collect, after deleting the word "additionally."

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, another proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge received $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

In deference to Zaereth (see below), we could add a location so it would read as follows:

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, a different proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge (connecting Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, providing an alternate commuting route to Wasilla and other points north) also received $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

I would then keep the current second and third paragraphs, although I do think we could tighten the fourth. The second, third, and fourth paragraphs would deal exclusively with the Gravina Island Bridge. This above sentence (and its accompanying footnote) would be the only sentence in the entire bio that mentions Knik Arm. This is a far cry from the Election Day version when we had several sentences about Knik Arm and a "see also" link to it. I don't see how we can say much less than this without confusing readers who have read one of the thousands of "bridgeS to nowhere" articles.GreekParadise (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my display of ignorance, but could somebody show me where google is considered a reliable source, since it seems to come up often?Zaereth (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To GP, I'm not sure how separating the two bridges is confusing to the reader, as would be my suggestion to use Paul's paragraph. Nor do I see how adding a simple location to your intro paragraph above is confusing, but rather the opposite. While I would prefer Paul's simply for its sheer elegance and precision, I too am willing to compromise.Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with adding a simple location to the agreed-on paragraph. I've said so above. How about "another proposed Alaska bridge connecting Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, providing an alternate commuting route to Wasilla and other points north"GreekParadise (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm fine with separating the bridges. That's exactly what I DO want. Paul's version doesn't mention Knik Arm at all. Therein lies the problem. And for those of you who like Knik Arm, you wouldn't want it to be confused with Gravina Island anyway, would you?GreekParadise (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not on the Wasilla stuff. Kelly ^hi! 02:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See, herein lies the problem. Your addition makes it appear that this is Palin's pet project by singling out her home town. This brings in the need to mention Houston, Willow, Big Lake, Talkeetna, etc... Then we end up getting into Anchorage expansion, (the main purpose of the bridge), and the reduction of travel and shipping costs to and from points farther north, such as Fairbanks, Healy, and gosh, even Los Angeles California. Suddenly we have a whole bridge article right here. What your addition becomes without all of this information is synthesis, which people who are from here can see right through, but for a good majority of people who have never been here it may seem like the gospel truth. Every line in this bio should be written with the subject in mind, and somehow convey how it directly relates to her. She was a track star. (I think that relates to her.) She has five kids. (She may have had something to do with that.) A proposed bridge that has been in planning since before she was born would provide an alternate route to her home town, albeit not a better one, and other places, as well as a primary benefit to Anchorage. ( I fail to see what Palin had to do with any of this.) Oh, she supports said bridge. Well so do I and many others. I have no problem with mentioning her support for said bridge and providing a link to the bridge article where all of these details actually become relevant. Provided that the wikilinks are reinserted, I could even go along with altering your change to read:

In 2005, Congress passed $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known nationally as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. In the same omnibus spending bill, a different proposed Alaska bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge (connecting Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, providing an alternate commuting route to Anchorage from other points north) also received $231 million in earmarks and occasionally shared the "Bridge to Nowhere" nickname. Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, including John McCain, Congress eliminated these $450 million Alaska bridge earmarks but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund.

That simply changes two words and relieves any innuendo. Zaereth (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There's still a problem with the math. We are adding the costs of these two bridges and excluding the aggregate costs of the many other earmarks that were removed from this bill. In totaling the amounts of just the two bridges, we are intentionally painting KAB as equivalent to GIB in terms of being symbolic of federal wasteful spending, and neither the sources nor reality support that assertion. KAB and GIB earmarks were in the same bill, and both were occasionally (mis)named bridges to nowhere. That's where the similarity ends. Yes, McCain objected to the earmarks for these bridges, but he objects to all earmarks. Nothing notable there. Finally, it may even bear mentioning that the Coburn amendment was embraced in committee because of the perceived need to divert those funds to post-Katrina recovery (specifically, bridge construction!) Here is an exact quote from the amendment with respect to Knik Arm: "by striking “Planning, design, and construction of Knik Arm Bridge” and inserting “Reconstruction of Twin Spans Bridge connecting New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana” Full text. Even in the most recent iteration, we're letting GP rewrite history to paint KAB as if it were "dismissed with prejudice", and that's simply inaccurate. GIB was maligned nationally, not KAB. Let's get the history correct here. The more I think about this, the less I'm inclined to believe that a mention of KAB even belongs here. I agreed to the disambiguation of the term "bridge to nowhere" to move things along, but it's turned into a freight train. I now withdraw my support for any mention of Knik Arm and support only the Bridge to Nowhere version proposed by Paul H. up above. This is getting absurd. Fcreid (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, then. I give up and propose formal arbitration. Obviously the fact that hundreds of well-verified sources mention Palin and KAB and Wasilla and the fact that thousands of sources call it a bridge to nowhere and the fact that GIB and KAB were the only Alaska bridges in the omnibus bill and that McCain personally condemned the KAB by name ("Don Young's Way") will never convince either of you. I believe, if a wikipedia editor disagrees with the facts/conclusions of a verified source, he/she should provide balancing facts/sources. But obviously the two of you believe that hundreds of sources should simply be disregarded because y'all personally and strongly disagree with their conclusions. (I don't doubt the good faith of your strong disagreement on the matter. I just don't think your opinion on the matter is relevant.) Compromise is hereby impossible. I will ask KC and Johnny what the process is for formal arbitration.GreekParadise (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stick all of that in a McCain article, then... or the Don Young article or wherever else it might belong. It just doesn't belong here. We can argue the accuracy of characterizing KAB as a "bridge to nowhere" in the first place, but that has nothing to do with my objection to including KAB in this article. I've tried several times to illustrate the faulty syllogism you're using to argue for its inclusion, but I'll try again. "Palin said 'thanks, but no thanks' for the Bridge to Nowhere. Some has called KAB a bridge to nowhere. Therefore, Palin said 'thanks, but no thanks' for KAB." Don't you see where that fails? There's simply no logical tangent between KAB and Palin, other than the bridge will ultimately go somewhere near her hometown (should she still even be a resident when construction completes). That, in itself, surely doesn't warrant discussion in a biography. Fcreid (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

N.B. GP, the frustration leading to your precipitous departure isn't the right solution to this, and it shows we've failed on a basic WP goal of collaboration. The article can only be worse for the resulting lack of balance. I know you see me as uncompromising, and your unwillingness to address my specific points has probably polarized my opinion even further. We're only human. I made this suggestion a week or so ago on your talk page, but it was removed without a direct response. Could you possibly start with the "Bridge to Nowhere" that everyone actually agrees is a bridge to nowhere? Address the points relevant to GIB and Palin--her support for the bridge when it was politically advantageous, the construction of the access road despite federal funding, the apparent contradiction in her "thanks, but no thanks" speeches and whatever else you can properly-source and present in a balanced and neutral manner. After we're in agreement on that section--which may have its own challenges--we (in the collective) can examine the points you feel haven't been addressed adequately by that section alone and can only be addressed in the context of Knik Arm. For example, if you feel her policy towards marine mammal preservation is disproportionately favorable towards developers, let's examine the evidence and toss around that issue. If you think she's colluding with "big names" in Alaska politics and finance in an irresponsible or unethical manner, let's look at the evidence. Perhaps in the end, when we look at these as two separate issues, you may sway others' opinion for its inclusion. At this point, I'd be hard-pressed to think you'll sway many opinions by treating both bridges as a single bundle. Fcreid (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Which specific point do you feel I haven't responded to? I have agreed several times above to put the Knik Arm bridge in its own separate section. My invitation to this has never been accepted until now, when I think you have agreed to the idea. If so, I would include more information on it, everything from the contradiction on earmarks to the beluga whales. Tell you what, I'll draft both the Bridge to Nowhere and Knik Arm Bridge as separate sections and present it to you on this page. But you must understand that I'm not making up some strange connection between Palin and the KAB. Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of verified sources did this long before I studied it. I've told you all the connections between Palin and the KAB and I'm hesitant to repeat myself, but yes all of them (hypocrisy on earmarks, contradiction with McCain, continued support, beluga whales, help to Wasilla, has each been addressed by dozens of sources. I don't ask you to agree with their conclusions. I understand you believe these hundreds of media sources have been unfair to Palin and the KAB. But with all due respect, the best way to deal with a criticism you believe to be unfair is not to delete the criticism and pretend the New York Times, the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, John McCain, and the Mayor of Wasilla don't exist, but to present the opposing view, again with a citation to a reasonable source.GreekParadise (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

After all of the sturm und drang here, I still don't understand why the Knik Arm Bridge is part of the Sarah Palin bio. She was a mayor in 2005, not governor or a congressional rep, when the funding for that bridge became an issue, and (unlike the Gravina Island Bridge) she never claimed to say "Thanks but no thanks" to funding for it. The GIB is clearly relevant, but the KAB is not. Just because it is an infrastructure project that happens to go somewhere near her home does not mean that it is relevant to her bio, and you, Greek Paradise, have railed and fulminated about needing to keep in the article without ever providing a solid reason. Horologium (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually she wasn't even a mayor in 2005. She was a private citizen at that time. Otherwise I completely agree. Kelly ^hi! 05:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the page above. If you read it and you still can't see the connections between Palin and the KAB, then write me on my talk page and show me you've read the above by citing each of the reasons I show that hundreds of media sources connect Palin to the KAB and tell me specifically why each of these hundreds of sources should be ignored. I'm not going to answer again what I've answered a dozen times. What's the point in repeating myself? Please read this page above.GreekParadise (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have read the talk page, and found your repetitive and badgering comments to be lacking in substance. There are three issues here in appears you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge:

1. John McCain did not oppose the spending bill containing the earmark for the KAB because of that earmark; it was one of a multitude of earmarks which he criticized.
2. The 2005 spending bill has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SARAH PALIN. She was not governor, she was not in congress, she was a private citizen. Discussing John McCain's opposition to a 2005 spending bill is irrelevant to the biography of Sarah Palin is irrelevant, as Sarah Palin was not involved in the appropriation in any way, shape, or form.
3. The KAB has been in the planning stages since before Alaska was a state; it's not something that Palin, Stevens, Murkowski, or Young cooked up to bring federal dollars to the state. She supports it, and is not opposed to federal money for it; all states get a bunch of money from the government for transportation in the state, and she has decided to use some of that money to continue with a project which already had money invested in it by her predecessor. This does not mean that she supported financing it through an earmark, which is what outraged McCain. Further, none of the links demonstrate that McCain is opposed to spending on transportation projects in general, only ones that are funded by earmarks surreptitiously added by lawmakers late in the budgeting process. Your preferred version attempts to create a difference of opinion between McCain and Palin which simply does not exist. Horologium (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to points raised above:

1. McCain specifically mocked that earmark and its designation as "Don Young's Way." John McCain opposed the KAB no more or no less than he opposed GIB (which you could also argue was one of multitudes of earmarks he criticized).

2. Palin had nothing to do with the 2005 spending bill with regards to GIB or KAB. But she campaigned for both bridges. Unlike GIB, she continues to support the Knik Arm Bridge and federal funding of it. Granted, KAB received somewhat less media attention than GIB. But other than that, it has the same relevance. Arguably more so, since she did not change her mind on KAB.

3. McCain called KAB a "monstrosity" and "terrifying in its fiscal consequences." Palin supports the bridge and federal funding of the bridge. I would say that is a true difference of opinion between them. (I'm not saying who's right or wrong. It may be a very good bridge, but they differ on it.)GreekParadise (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to get off topic here, but one thing I really like about Wikipedia are the wikilinks, which allows a reader access to relevant info without the need to include all the boring details. For instance, in the flashtube article I could've explained what blackbody radiation is, but its simpler, neater, and easier reading to link it to the relevant article. One thing I do not like about Wikipedia is the ability for anybody to include anything simply because somebody somewhere happened to write it down. ("The world's largest collection of rumors", as Carson Daily put it. See my above reference to the dogfight article for a prime example.) If a million sources say the moon is made of green cheese, but better, more scientific sources say otherwise I don't feel there is a need to include both as opposing viewpoints. One is simply ridiculous and far outweighed by fact. The KAB's Wasilla connection to Palin would seem to fall in that same catagory. While I do agree with Fcried and Horologium, I'm not even going to touch the math or the supposed McCain connection. But when we're dealing with things where clear facts are present that would, to me, trump whatever opinions are out there on the matter. Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)