Talk:Sarah Palin

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Palin's Church

Sarah Palins church is not recognized by the Assembly of God Denomination. her congregation is a end times apocalypse styled church not a pentecostal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamkrattkc (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Assembly of God church is a New Apostolic Reformation, of "Third Wave". This movement is NOT the same as Pentecostalism of the Asssemblies of God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.200.20 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this, by any chance, mean that she'll launch nuclear weapons as soon as she gets control of them, in an attempt to bring about the Apocalypse? I am very concerned about this. Kelly ^hi! 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The comments preceeding Kelly's sarcastic response might be more credible if they didn't directly contradict the facts. [1] GRBerry 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG - TANNING BED!!!11!1!

Politico is reporting[2] that Palin installed a tanning bed in the Governor's Mansion in defiance of the American Cancer Society! This needs to go into the article immediately, preferably in the lead! Palin is pro-cancer!

Seriously, could this election get any more inane and tabloidy? :) Kelly ^hi! 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And if Politico says it, it must be important and true. I had an argument with an IP a couple days ago about how just because Politico says Obama got a discount on home loans 10 years ago, there is no reason to insert it into the "Early life and career" sections. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Wikipedia is not a chat forum. If this sourced fact was raised in order to consider its inclusion into the article that would be one thing. But apparently, the issue is being raised for the sole purposes of ridicule and sarcasm. It's not really appropriate to bring this kind of stuff up on the talk pages. In fact, the whole section should be removed. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just commentary on the sources we have to filter here. Lighten up, Francis. Kelly ^hi! 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Francis? And again, how does it help us to edit an encyclopedia entry? *sigh* J Readings (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Francis" is from this film and is meant in a light-hearted way. Very well, I formally propose that we add the fact that Palin installed a tanning bed in the Governor's Mansion, based on Politico's hard-hitting reporting. :) Kelly ^hi! 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pvt. Francis "Psycho" Sawyer. That's the character's name apparently, right? I see. J Readings (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the film, I guess you wouldn't understand. But honestly, no offense intended. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The press has gone insane on both sides in this election. Since we have to rely on them for sources, it sucks to be us. I wish some of the editors who have successfully kept out garbage on the Obama article would help us out here. Maybe they will trickle over here eventually, but for now the insanity continues. Kelly ^hi! 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to slow the garbage, although it might be challenging. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks - we need all the good editors we can get here. Kelly ^hi! 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in too, though my schedule is tight at the moment. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The press is doing OK. They're actually calling out some of the more blatant untruths in campaign ads, which is more than they usually do. What do you expect from them? Everyone wants to know more about Sarah Palin, she has virtually no record on issues of national significance, and the campaign has her avoid unscripted encounters like a vampire avoids holy water. Reportage on tanning beds is the natural, and perhaps intended, result. MastCell ^Talk 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, there are may other sources that are not frivolous, such as this: "Palin's Project List Totals $453 Million - WSJ.com". Retrieved 2009-09-15. - Better focus on these sources... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, you've got a point there. You can't really blame the campaign for being a little skittish, though, given all the garbage the press threw out there about the family, and some of the frankly vicious stuff in the op-ed columns. I'm happy to see the press getting punished, after being forced to deal with their trashy reporting here at this article. :) If the McCain campaign is smart, they'll just bypass any hostile press and talk directly to the American people. Kelly ^hi! 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Or this one from The Sydney Morning Herald: "Press picks over litter of lies on the Palin trail - US Election - smh.com.au". Retrieved 2009-09-15. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an irrelevant, non-original news source. The article is a rehash of articles and columns from the US, including the NYT story, and editorial columns. It would make a really bad example of a source in WP. Collect (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's a good source because it speaks directly to the issue: summarizing editorial reaction to the ads. The applicable policy states:

Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. (from Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position)

If a Wikipedian had produced a meta-analysis of this type, it would arguably violate the policy. It's not original research, however, if the newspaper reviews several sources and synthesizes them to come to a conclusion, and we then quote the newspaper. JamesMLane t c 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. By your argument, any news release from a campaign which cites genuine sources then becomes citable in itself. Reductio ad absurdam. In the past such agglomerations of precis from other sources were regarded as less than cites for the original sources. In this case, the SMH iterates material already given in other cites in the article, and then is counted as a new source. It isn't. Collect (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

An international news source is indeed reliable, in partiular because it does summarize the collective sources on the subject from US news media. Please re-read WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is "source." This "source" is being used to reintroduce material already discussed, from sources which have alrready been discussed. It offers, in fact, absolutely nothing new. Where the actual original source has already been discussed, and the material either allowed in or ruled out by consensus, it is disingenuous to use the back door argument of the source being "international" to get around the discussions already found on this Talk page. Collect (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) A campaign's release is indeed citeable, whether or not it cites sources, because it's an expression of a notable opinion, and we report facts about opinions, per WP:NPOV. Of course, we don't cite every campaign release; we cite very few, but they're just about all eligible for inclusion if important enough (and if properly attributed). The newspaper article is obviously more reliable, though. (2) If a new source is offered, its availability can change a previous consensus. Some editors who thought that the material had to be excluded under WP:RS might now think it could be presented in accordance with our policies. (3) In any event, no alleged consensus on Wikipedia is cast in stone. Individual editors (and hence the community as a whole) are allowed to change their minds even without new evidence. I don't know if there actually was a consensus before, because I can't claim to have mastered every nook and cranny of this page's voluminous archives. (As an aside, it would help if anyone claiming a consensus, on this or any other issue, would provide a link.) Even assuming your assertion to be correct, though, it doesn't end the issue. Defenders of the status quo need to address the merits of the proposed change. JamesMLane t c 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, as long as proponents keep bringing it up, it is up to those who were here before to keep demurring, otherwise the folks who keep bringing it up, win? If you aver that it is standard and customary practice to have biassed "campaign" material placed in each BLP, I would suggest rather that it is up to you to show that this is the practice, and not have the onus fall on those who believe the status quo was correct. Can anyone show me where it is current practice to include "campaign releases" because they are a "notable opinion"? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You might consider reading the link I already provided. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a "fundamental principle" of this project. It states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. ... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." (emphasis in original) Of course, there's generally no reason to make statements of fact, even if accurate, about the opinion of some random blogger, which is why the policy also refers to "prominent adherents" (emphasis in original). So, let's suppose, hypothetically, that the Obama campaign put out a press release that ssid "Sarah Palin is lying about the Bridge to Nowhere." Obviously, we could not, on that basis, include in the Wikipedia article the statement "Palin lied about the Bridge to Nowhere." We could, however, say "The Obama campaign accused Palin of lying about the Bridge to Nowhere" or the like. That wouldn't violate WP:RS or WP:NPOV. Usually, however, we'd have no reason to go out of our way to tell the readers that political opponents disagreed with each other, so we seldom quote such criticisms. (Please note that this entire discussion is a tangent, in response to your reference to a "news release from a campaign". The Sydney Morning Herald article is not a campaign news release and is on a different footing.) JamesMLane t c 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Might you give me an actual example, say, in the Obama article where a statement is attributed to the McCain campaign? I trust the SMH precis has been discussed enough, and, at this point, I see no consensus that that specific source ought be included. BTW, I did not initiate the comments about news releases. The subject of news releases was raised on 15 September, a day before I used the term. I trust you will note this fact. Collect (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I've quoted for you the relevant provision from a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. The policy establishes that certain types of material don't violate NPOV. As I've repeatedly said, though, that doesn't mean that all such material must be quoted -- far from it. Whether a specific instantiation of the policy (a factual report about a McCain press release) occurs in a specific article that I scarcely edit (Barack Obama) is information that's not readily available to me and wouldn't prove anything anyway. If your belief is that we should never quote a campaign press release, or that the circumstances under which we do so should be significantly limited, you should propose a policy change at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). As a practical matter, if you first raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view you might get some help working out proposed new language. JamesMLane t c 00:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the omitted admission that your claim about me was false. That is very reassuring. The issue is very clear, BLP sources are held to a higher standard than you seem to believe, as the quoted language from the WP:RS article indicates. I understand that you think, for example, that John McCain, himself, is not a reliable source on John McCain. I know you were far more active in the McCain article, and that controversies existed there. This is political "silly season" and we owe the readers the truth, not spin. The Palin article is far less sanitized than some other articles appear to be, and I would hope that you would assign the same zeal to protecting the NPOV here that others promote in other articles. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects, what?

Why is there a link specifically to Palin's Endangered Species policy in her Governorship page under her Political positions on this main page? If we must cross-link, why not to her Governorship page in general? That's kinda confusing to me. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the animal "rights" activist that Palin pissed off have been on her page since the second day of her nomination and only one admin (so it seems) has had the backbone to challenge them on their extreme POV entries. Example - the use of the word "gunning" rather than the term culling. Theosis4u (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't think "culling" is neutral, either, though I do think it reflects the intentions of the parties involved better than "gunning" does. Maybe shooting? I dunno, hard to find a neutral word there. At any rate, I don't think that link belongs there. :/ FangedFaerie (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note, I would add that we should use culling but also use Culling and allow that article to reflect the politics of the word. This way articles can use the word correctly but at the sametime easily inform readers about it's use and politics. Theosis4u (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hereby declare my intention to remove the link. I'll wait a day to see if anyone disagrees. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, and with no controversy! Hurray! :) FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere - Redux REDUX

A week ago, this section was short and, dare I say, elegant. It said:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

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

Two Alaskan bridge construction proposals supported by Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial race have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending: a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where its airport lies;[91] and a proposed bridge ("Don Young's Way", named after Alaska's Congressman) crossing Knik Arm to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla.[92] The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[93] or, more rarely, both bridges.[94]

In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached.[95] In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform,[96] attacking "spinmeisters"[97] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[96] and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[98] About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals, a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain,[99] and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding.[100] Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government[101] and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned.[96] Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[102]

In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[103][104] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[105] These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum.[106][107][108][109] Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[110]

Then folks started adding detail after mind-numbing detail about each of the bridges. I usually don't fight additions, though I found them unnecessary. But then I knew what would come next. After these details were added, more important details would be subtracted. The fact that Congress removed the earmark was removed. (Wouldn't that be the most important fact?) There were claims the bridge was proposed to go to the airport. (It wouldn't have. It would have gone to the island on which the airport lies.) Time was added, making sentences longer (two months after she became governor; two years after the bridge proposals...can't our readers count? Why can't we just give the date if the other things (when she became governor; when the bridges were proposed) are already in the article?) The detail of how Palin blamed Congress was added. OK, fine. But then a praise by TCS was added--I guess for "balance"--without noting the many critical articles on TCS' website condemning McCain/Palin for purposely misstating the facts on the bridge. Oops. Then lots of stuff on the second bridge was added, often repeating information found earlier in the very same subsection

Most importantly, the whole reason why the bridge was important was removed: it's use in the McCain/Palin campaign and the criticism for it. It is doubtful there would be thousands of articles over the last week on the "Bridge to Nowhere" if it weren't used by McCain and Palin at the Republican National Convention in every campaign stop. And yet, literally hundreds of thousands of articles according to Google have accused McCain and Palin of "lying" on the issue. Perhaps no other accusation in the entire McCain campaign has been more contested as a lie -- by newspapers across the political spectrum from far right Wall Street Journal to mainstream to far left Nation--than the bridge to nowhere. Even Palin herself admitted in the ABC interview with Gibson that she was for the bridge before she was against it, that she kept the earmarked money and that she only wanted to build the bridge if federal taxpayers footed the bill. And yet, Palin continues to give it as an example of her saying no to federal spending when the truth is Alaska kept the federal spending and didn't even build the bridge. (One could argue the only thing more fiscally irresponsible than taking federal money to build an extravagant bridge is to take the money and not build the bridge.)

At any rate, my rant is over. I propose going back to the original article, short and sweet, but so as not to delete anything, I simply added back the deleted material. I did not add back any quotations from the many critical press articles, except Newsweek's very brief one which encapsulates all the criticism.

If you like the long, convoluted article, that's your choice. But please do not remove the criticism that is at the heart of why the bridge is so notable: Palin's stating--or misstating--the facts about the bridge on the campaign trail.

(And if someone wants me to revert back to my original consensus version that lasted a good week with very few changes, just let me know, and with enough support, I'll happily do it.)GreekParadise (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Last point: perhaps the longer version, if not used here, should be used in the article on the bridge(s).GreekParadise (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, be bold and revert to the good version. The current text is much more suitable for the actual bridge article. Grsz^talk 05:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. All the stories of the bridge fail to mention that Ketchikan is land lock and can only be reached by air or boat. That the airport is on an island across from the town. That the island provides multiples of sq. miles of development as compared to what is left in Ketchikan. Look for yourself here. Also, Palin has never said she agreed to the "bridge" as is in regards to the projected dollar amount of the project - she agreed to a link. But I suppose all those facts and contexts are worth much to make the topic exciting. And please, show me the law and the process that allows the Governor to "return" the money that Congress (Obama & Biden voted yes on by the way) gave to Alaska that use to be allocated to the "bridge to no-where"? Theosis4u (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're going on about Theosis4u. If you think that stuff is important, by all means bring it up. None of those issues have been discussed much by any of the candidates of late, and as it is now the article does deal more directly with the issue as it's being debated by the candidates and in the popular press. But that doesn't mean that the other details need not be discussed. I do think that a balance needs to be struck between the length of material here, but certainly this stuff should be in the sub-article. Aprock (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am bringing them up and have else where. I've lived in Alaska and know many of the cities, towns, villages are only accessible from air or water. Those in the lower 48 don't appreciate this situation and will most likely not even consider this as a possibility. Also the fact that the town is constrained for development (geographically) and could use the island for expansion if a bridge was done only gives support to WHY a bridge would be consider being built. It's much more than a "because the airport was on the island". This inclusion doesn't take away or add to the debate about the cost of the project and if it was corrupt or excessive. I do believe that leaving these two points out though does slant the story to a POV agenda. Theosis4u (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this should be included with the above context. Palin didn't support the bridge as an "as-is" blanket statement of approval. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. Palin said, "The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done," from Boston Herald I think that is notable considering the current description and qoutes implies she did, when we know she didn't. Theosis4u (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@GreekParadise...Yep...I agree w/Grsz11. Pre-changes, the segment was clear and NPOV. Until election day, there will be attempts to cover them (the bridges) with camoflouge (sp) since they represent many angles to Gov Palins tenure. You have stated somewhere, days and days ago, of your desire to keep this section free of partisanship. Good Luck. --Buster7 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't introduce SPAM into the article someone duplicated a whole subsection two times in the article, once in the campaign section where it belongs and once in the Governorship section, word for word, so check the article carefully before you edit it. The SPAM that appeared two times was the following, (one of those was legitimate)

"In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[103][104] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[105] These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum.[106][107][108][109] Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[110]". Hobartimus (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I consider that sufficient support for reverting. As for the airport, I'm not saying don't include it. I think it should be included. It's a major, if not the major, reason why the bridge was suggested. I'm only saying that the bridge goes to the island where the airport lies (which is accurate), rather than the bridge goes directly to the airport (which is inaccurate, since it must be reached by an access road). Sometimes, wikipedia has to bow down to the gods of accuracy.  :-) GreekParadise (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, that's not spam but the original consensus version of the article. It does raise an interesting question, though, whether it belongs in the bridge section or the campaign section. Probably one should be shortened and refer to the other.GreekParadise (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it appeared two times in the article word for word was SPAM. I have no problem with it appearing 1 time at 1 place. How it was before I removed 1 of them was pure spam, repeating the same thing word for word. One instance is legitimate 2 (copied word for word) is SPAM. Hobartimus (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG you just introduced SPAM to the article in this edit [3] with the exact same sentences being duplicated in two sections (campaign and governorship), please revert yourself, this clearly damages the article.Hobartimus (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[109]" is not supported by reference 109. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r4:c0.0766691 . I suggest the POV statement which is not supported by the cite given ought to be removed forthwith. Collect (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference [105], not [109], supports the claim. One of the reasons for reverting to the old consensus version was so references would be accurate. And this one is, as you can see.GreekParadise (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The revised reference (I cut and pasted the reference which listed source 109) still does not support the claim. In fact it states explicitly "That revised claim would be more persuasive, however, if she had not continued to support Alaska’s other Bridge to Nowhere until as recently as last June." Hence I inserted the actual reference from the cite. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The most important fact, the fact that the earmarks were removed, was not omitted, it was corrected. Per the "other" redux conversation in the talk page, I have explained in detail how omitting a brief synopsis of why the earmark was removed strips out perspective, and adds undue weight on congress for the act, when there was more to it than that. If there were anything that needs to be reintegrated back into the article, it would be the Stevens protest of the Coburn amendment, for the 2006 appropriations bill, seeing that this wasnt simply a hovering earmark that they handed off, it was hidden in the annual national budget for transportation and housing. I am confident that his can be done in a brief synopsis manner to bring the subarticle back into NPOV. The version listed in [[Gravina Island Bridge was over 2.5 paragraphs, and the version I originally had in here was about 1.5 sentences. Duuude007 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

After you corrected it, D, someone removed it, considering it too long. (Check history.) I'd rather have the short version than no version at all. I've never removed your longer version, but my problem is that once you add it, folks add all kinds of tangential things until other people complain article is unwieldy. For Palin purposes, I think it is only sufficient to say that Congress removed the earmark after criticism. I think throwing in Stevens and the Coburn Amendment confuses more than it elucidates in an article on Palin, although the details absolutely should be in the article on the Gravina bridge. What is the essence of what you want to add? That the earmark was hidden in the bill? That could be added in a word or two without going into Stevens and the Coburn Amendment.GreekParadise (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if you remember, the almost immediate followup to the earmark being stripped from the bill was the transparency act written by Coburn and cosponsored by both Obama and McCain. this proves that the earmark was deceitful in passage even to the senate's POV, and they made sure such a thing would never happen again. Flatly blaming congress without at least a little detail pertaining to this veers away from the neutrality that we all love. I am definitely open to suggestions, if you have an idea of how to better summarize it. Duuude007 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

D, would this sentence alleviate your concerns?

In 2005, Congress passed a $442 million earmark hidden in omnibus legislation to build the two bridges but later reversed itself...

My point is, if your concern is about "blaming Congress," I don't mind pointing out that the earmark was hidden in omnibus legislation. Find me a source that says this and I'm all about reincluding it, short and sweet, without details (Coburn Amendment) that cannot be explained adequately in a short amount of space. What do you think?GreekParadise (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• hmm, even that has something wierd with it. It implies that the bill's sole purpose was the earmark, when it was actually included in a national level trans/housing/urban dev budget for 2006. It wasn't media exposed until the amendment was put forward a month later. Plus the term omnibus is a bit unfriendly to the layman. Duuude007 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that the bill's sole purpose was the earmark at all. That's what I meant by "hidden in omnibus legislation." We could wikify "omnibus" in case readers don't know what it means (it's already in wikipedia), but "omnibus" is the most accurate term and is, I think, better that "was a very small part of some very large and complicated legislation".GreekParadise (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose. But I consider myself fairly scholarly, and that syntax is pushing my own interpretations. Would "within an omnibus 2006 budget bill" be a more layman's way of describing it, or am I fouling up the context too much in that interpretation? Duuude007 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the language.GreekParadise (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, are we back in consensus?! I might have a heard attack <sniff> Duuude007 (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to spare your health, I'll come along and disagree. First, to say that the earmark was "hidden" in the bill is unsupported and POV. Don Young denies that it was hidden: "It was always transparent,” he says. [4] Second, it's misleading to say that the earmark was in a bill that was passed, because that would strike most readers as meaning "enacted". I think what happened was that the House and the Senate passed different bills. Each included the earmark but they differed in other respects, so neither was enacted; both went to a conference committee. The conference committee reported out a version that didn't include the earmark, and that's what passed. See this article from CQ Politics. For this summary, we don't need all that detail, but we shouldn't misleadingly imply that the earmark was enacted, and had the force of law, but was later repealed. Third, it's not enough to say that Congress stripped the earmark "later". The single most important fact about the chronology is that Congress stripped the earmark before Palin ever became Governor, so we have to specify that it was stripped in 2005. I'll make appropriate edits and hope that these changes are uncontroversial. JamesMLane t c 07:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with JamesMLane's edits. Hope you are too, D.GreekParadise (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well done. Duuude007 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks

There are five references that pertain to debunking Palin's claim "thanks but no thanks," including one offset quotation from Newsweek ("astonishing pivot"). I'm not sure the Newsweek quotation adds much except editorial outrage. The thanks/no thanks is adequately debunked by the prior 4 sources. (Propose: removing Newsweek). Kaisershatner (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

The references debunking the claim are in footnotes, designed to show widespread disapproval. Orginally they were cited in the main text to show that on the right (WSJ editorial), as well as in more mainstream sources, Palin's claim was debunked. (There are literally hundreds of thousands of mentions in Google attacking her claim as a "lie." The Newsweek quote is short and tries to sum up the prevailing feeling. To take it out would be to say, in effect, there is criticism without saying what the criticism is. The Newsweek quote has been discussed many times. Check the old archives of this talk page. It was debated and determined to leave in one quoted criticism while removing the others from the WSJ and NYT, etc.GreekParadise (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that including a brief quote is reasonable. I don't really like the Newsweek one, becuase as Kaisershatner noted, it basically just expresses disapproval. I prefer a quote from the lead of the Washington Post story: "Critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called [Palin's Bridge claim] a fabrication or, at best, a half-truth." This quote underscores the previous sentence, which alludes to the broad and nonpartisan objections to Palin's claim. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it does more than express disapproval. It remarks on her including it all the time in the speech as if she had never said otherwise. Originally we had both Wash Post and Newsweek in article (about 10 days ago, you can find it), and I'm OK with putting WashPost back. (Others may complain.) I do think Newsweek and WashPost are saying slightly different things. WaPo's saying it's false. Newsweek's saying Palin is acting as if she never said otherwise. Those are different complaints.GreekParadise (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been fudged to state that she "continues" to support the Don Young's bridge, despite the fact that the cite given used the past tense. Using the present tense is not supported by the cite as given. If the person wishes to use the present tense, then another cite would have to be found. Would someone kindly place her support in the past tense as indicated in the actual cite given? I am not a "reverter." Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The cite does NOT use the past tense. The cite says "So far, Gov. Palin has not “stopped” that second Bridge to Nowhere" That means her support continues. Please read the source. It's the New York Observer. Perhaps you're reading something else?01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC) GreekParadise (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The source given says "That revised claim would be more persuasive, however, if she had not continued to support Alaska’s other Bridge to Nowhere until as recently as last June." " I consider "if she had not continued" to be an exemplar of the past tense. It does not say "she continues" as some appear to wish it said. And yes -- I quote the New York Observer article. I consider the issue of the tense to be settled. Her support was until last June by the precise words of the article cited. Collect (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, you're wrong. Perhaps the New York Observer article has some ambiguity, but not this one by the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News dated yesterday, September 16. http://community.adn.com/node/131399. I'll add the article to the source list so that no one questions her continued support again.GreekParadise (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The cite given used the past tense, as stated. If you add another source, then you should also include the ambiguity in the source as cited. Unless another source is given, the past tense is correct. Moreover the source added contains the apparently erroneous claim that the second bridge goes to Wasilla. There is a possibility that this added source is incorrect in that regard. Would you use it for a claim that the second bridge goes to Wasilla? Collect (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the sources condemning use of Bridge to Nowhere by McCain/Palin in the campaign have been moved from the Bridge to Nowhere section to the campaign section. For the record, I preferred leaving them in the bridge section. As they are now, they are orphaned from context. In other words, the reader, if he/she only reads the campaign section, has no idea if the statements are true or false whereas a reader who has just read the Bridge section would be able to evaluate the comments for himself/herself. I would like to return the comments to the Bridge section but understand my will may not have been the wiki-majority. But given the section was moved, I think it is important to replace it, not with a duplication but with an explanation of the critique and a reference to the section where the material is now included. I have done that.GreekParadise (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

object This paragraph needs to be cleaned of POV inferences and cleared of it's inaccurate statements. Delete/cleanup the following:

"...without mentioning Palin's prior support for the first Bridge to Nowhere,"

It's agenda pushing to reference her prior support in regards to the convention speech UNLESS you want to also give the complete details of the situation. Better done on the subarticles.

"...her continued support for the second Bridge to Nowhere, "

It's agenda pushing to reference her prior support in regards to the convention speech UNLESS you want to also give the complete details of the situation. Better done on the subarticles.

"...or the fact that when she said "no thanks" to Congress, Palin determined that Alaska should keep the entire $442 million originally earmarked for both bridges."

Weasel wording with "Palin determined". It was Congress that killed the earmark. It was Congress that happen to include addition money [not earmarked to bridges] to Alaska that was of the same figure. This issue goes to the topics of earmarks and Congress, not Palin.

"This discrepancy has caused a wide variety of media sources across the political spectrum to claim the McCain/Palin campaign is "lying" or "misleading" on this point.""

And they claimed wrongly at the time and have backed off. She did kill it, she has never agreed to the full scope of the project, she agreed to the value of having a "link" if it could be done responsibly, and so forth. She STILL supports the ideas of a "link" at both locations. The issue is if they cost analysis and benefits makes sense.

Theosis4u (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

@ GreekParadise. How about this instead.....

• "...or the fact that when she said "no thanks" to Congress, Palin acquiesced that Alaska should keep the entire $442 million originally earmarked for both bridges."
• Also suggested for the second challenge.----"This discrepancy has caused a wide variety of media sources across the political spectrum to question the McCain/Palin campaign's sincerity on this point.""--Buster7 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis4u, this section is a summary of the widespread criticism of McCain/Palin on this score. We have to give a fair summary; we can't just say "there was criticism". It's not "agenda pushing" for us to mention the salient facts underlying the criticism. So, for example, a reasonable summary must include the fact of her original support, but doesn't need to get into the level of detail of "September 2006 speech said this, September 2007 said that". What we can do, however, is to make it clear that certain facts are being mentioned because they're the ones raised by media critics (not necessarily because they're the ones Wikipedia is presenting as objectively most important). I'll try a rewording along those lines and hope that the revised perspective satisfies your concerns. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis, this is a summary of media criticism. The other more specific media criticism on the campaign's use of the bridge was moved to the campaign section (against my wish, but I'm acquiescing :-) ), so this is a summary. Buster, I think that James does a good job here. I'm afraid that "acquiescence" is a POV. She did it. Whether she "acquiesced" in doing it is subjective. I like the second quote better "question sincerity," except that that's not the words the media used. "Misleading" and "lying" are direct quotes, so I prefer James' version. I will, however, make two small corrections to James: remove a non-gramattical "is". And I will change "important facts" to "the following" to lessen POV. (Who are we to say they're "important"? I think they're important, but that's my POV.)GreekParadise (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it, I decided "the following" was unnecessary verbiage, and I numbered the objections.GreekParadise (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This new version, compared with yesterday's, is substantially worse. The enumerations are superfluous and represent WP:OR unless they are cited, which they were in the prior version. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The full section is now at the campaign section, with a link from the bridge section. Campaign events and discussion goes into the Vice Presidential campaign section. Hobartimus (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations in the enumerations are all based on either the bridge article itself or the information on the bridge that was moved to the campaign article. This was a summary. Can't we just reference the wiki-article? If not, we can put multiple footnotes after each statement.GreekParadise (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and stem cell research

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

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

Abortion tied to rape and incest?

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

Indeed. This reminds me of pro-life people calling pro-choice people pro-abortion, or was that anti-choice people calling them that?66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. These "negative connotations" you mention are in the eye of the beholder - I'm sure there are plenty of people who would support her hardline position. In any event, there is nothing POV about fully elucidating that position. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the point in wasting space? "Only if the mother's life is in danger" is quite succinct and elucidates well all by itself. Should we iterate every possible scenario where she believes abortion should be an option? If you believe these various phraseologies are largely irrelevant, why do you even care?66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should present facts regardless of whether it garners support on one side of the political spectrum or the other. Would she oppose abortion in the case of teenage prenancy? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. If conception occurred while drunk? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. If the woman claimed it was an immaculate conception? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. See the trend here? Fcreid (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One such fact is that her opposition to abortion rights for women who have -- how can I phrase this without "negative connotations"? -- been impregnated against their will. (There, I've avoided that shudder-inducing word "rape".) Some readers (e.g. those who haven't benefited from "Focus on the Family", etc.) that any woman running for high office and born after the eighteenth century or thereabouts would acknowledge such a right; such readers may appreciate being informed (of course in a way that couldn't possibly reflect any point of view on any issue) that such an assumption is mistaken. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And the existing condition "unless the mother's life is in danger" clearly conveys that. Would a mother's life be in danger in the case of rape or incest? Or are you suggesting that you *intend* to lead the reader to some conclusion? Fcreid (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First I misphrased myself. Not "impregnated against their will" (which of course would cover consensual sex) but "penetrated against their will" or something along those lines. (Actually I'd prefer "rape". Similarly, I'd prefer "incest" to some circumlocution. They're both simple, easily understood terms, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to mince words.) Secondly, no, the "existing condition" does not convey this. Consider: "I'll meet you for dinner tomorrow unless the conference I must attend goes on after 7 p.m." says nothing explicit about what would happen if I wake up tomorrow with a head-splitting cold. Many people (I think most) would assume that the head-splitting cold, although not explicitly mentioned, would prompt cancellation of the dinner date, even if "definitely" or similar were added to the mix. (It seems that you would not be among them.) I don't understand your question "are you suggesting that you *intend* to lead the reader to some conclusion?" What I'm suggesting is that the article makes clear what Palin's position is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already debunked this claim with the logistics of "making it clear". Feel free to address that argument specifically, or concede the argument entirely.66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I take umbrage at your suggestion that a WP reader is not smart enough to conclude what the statement means. I think you made your own position on this matter clear with your Eighteenth Century comments above. However, if you'd like to expand this point to include quoted material where she stated she would "choose life" even if her own daughter were raped, that would seem to be acceptable (whether it makes your point or not). Some may argue undue weight to include point/counter-point in this political summary, however. Fcreid (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is sourced in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion. Were you only assigned to watch over this page rather than all of them? EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stating "only when the mother's life is in danger" does not adequately make her position clear. There are obviously many people who are against abortion that believe there should be an exception in cases of rape or incest. This is her stated position and it would be POV and deceptive spin not to add a few words for clarification. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then the position statement of those people would not read "only when the mother's life is endangered", would it? Fcreid (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

It does nothing of the sort, particularly since it's based entirely on the starw man that there is any confusion. You are wasting space to insert completely arbitrary, defacto biased, examples. Her position is crystal clear and completey conveyed by "she only supports abortion in case where the mother's life is in danger". 66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

True "rape" and "incest" are technically implied by "all" and in a court of law, there'd be no difference, but the argument for the basis of inclusion is to explore some of the more severe consequences of the word "all" the reader probably hadn't thought of.--Loodog (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: the source we took this piece of information from also explicitly sets aside cases of rape and incest. Could be argued to be a bias of the Seattle times, but nevertheless, there's precedent for including it explicitly in professional journalism.--Loodog (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to care what kind of examples the Seattle Times wishes to include in its pages? I thought I was an editor of encylopedic content, not constructing a term paper on the details of a specific pro-life position? Perhaps you think your fucntion here is something it is clearly not. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that your argument about rape and incest being implied would be applicable to the Seattle Times article as well, yet they've found reason to include explicit mentions.--Loodog (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Seattle Times does not necessarily have a "Neutral Point of View" as one of their bedrock principles.--Paul (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common across the spectrum to include the explicit rape/incest mention. Even Fox News: [5][6]--Loodog (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but he's a writer. It's entirely his volition to include or not include such examples, in fact it's in his job description to inject his own biases into his writing. But this is not a newspaper, nor is this a column; it's supposed to be enclypedic, and atttempts should be made to avoid injecting unneeded bias were none need be. Adding the "examples" does nothing to further enlighten the reader, nor does convey any additional information on her viewpoint. Unneeded bias, superfluous words does not a better wiki make.66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Loodog. It's not just the Seattle Times -- the overall off-Wiki political discussion includes extensive reference to Palin's position on abortion after rape. We select what to include in this summary based on the importance of the information. Specifying this point is clearly important. That it could be argued to be logically subsumed within "except to protect the health of the mother" doesn't change the way the media are addressing this particular non-exception, making it important. To take one of Fcreid's examples, on a Yahoo! search, +Palin +abortion +rape gets 4,470,000 hits. +Palin +abortion +"immaculate conception" is only 36,200, and even that surprisingly high number probably includes no or virtually no genuine hits. (On the first result page, the bulletin of the Church of St. Mary of the Immaculate Conception discusses Palin's stance on abortion.) JamesMLane t c 15:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The addition of the examples is nothing more thsn editorializing. The media have their agenda, but we do not share it, er, we aren't supposed to anyway. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More: [7] "The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant." If such an answer is implied, the question need not be asked.--Loodog (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin is against abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. This is her stated position. That is not controversial. It is supported by the references. Further exposition in this article, especially use of "Palin would criminialize all abortion in the United States" is just editorializing and fearmongering. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Addedndum: what she believes should be the case, and "she would criminalize" are not the same thing - the reference applies to the former, not the latter. At minimum, recognize the VP does not set abortion policy. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Nowhere in the sources does it says he wants to criminalize abortion. This should be removed.--Loodog (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Paul.h,Struck with apologies; Paul.h did not make the following comment; rather, an IP did. yes, you are supposed to care what the Seattle Times chooses to report as newsworthy. You're supposed to care about what reliable sources say, and reflect it accurately, when you have your Wikipedia hat on. Saying that the Seattle Times "does not necessarily have an NPOV" suggests a deep misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. This is a really simple one: if numerous reliable sources contextualize Palin's abortion stance by noting that she does not support rape/incest exceptions, then we reflect it, even if we personally as editors might disagree with that contextualization. If our sources don't say she'd criminalize abortion, then we don't say it. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: MastCell, "Am I supposed to care what kind of examples the Seattle Times wishes to include in its pages?" was not my edit. It's okay with me if you revise your comment and remove this reply.--Paul (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Loodog. Moving on to what I hope will be our next point of agreement: sources 179 and 180 don't mention "life of mother in danger." Source 179 says nothing at all about health or life, and source 180 states "Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger." I would change the current wording to reflect this "exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger" or propose changing the source if that is not her actual position. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, couldn't we say "Palin endorses the right of a rapist to force a woman to bear his child", and that would still be technically accurate given her stated position, right? Fcreid (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid. It is simply a fact that should be disclosed. That's basically her stance and it is important enough that everyone should know. It could make the difference (for some people) whether or not to vote for her/McCain. Editor^U.S.A. TIC 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Current version reads "Palin has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be"[176] and has called abortion an "atrocity".[177] She is against abortion in cases of rape or incest, but believes there should be an exception if the woman's health were in danger.[178][179]" It is short, accurate, and consistent with the cited sources. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

"No, she believes in using criminal law to punish people." I must have missed something. What's the source for this statement? From what I've seen, Palin seems to be remarkably hesitant to use government to pass laws about social issues.--Paul (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So I would say "She would criminalize abortion in cases of rape or incest, but believes there should be an exception if the woman's life (but not health) were in danger." (It is NOT accurate to say that Palin believes an abortion should be legal if the woman's health is in danger. Palin believes a woman must sacrifice her health (but not her life) to have the child.GreekParadise (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GP, I am quoting the cited source. It says "health." I would be happy to look at another source. I think "criminalize" is tendentious. Maybe Palin and McCain want to ban abortions by appointing conservative judges who will allow states to enact laws criminalizing abortion. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Here are the actual quoted sources suitable for RS [8]. Anything beyond this, including the "rape and incest" caveat in this statement is pure synthesis. Fcreid (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The problem I have with that wording is it imparts powers to her that she does not have. She will not outlaw abortion. She believes it should be outlawed. That is different. I changed wording to "believes abortion should be illegal in cases of rape or incest." Is that closer to agreement? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"She" would not do anything. Read that citation I provided above for her exact words where she specifically stated that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, she would do nothing except except what the people in her state voted to do. You are commingling her personal beliefs with her legislative agenda, and that's flat-out wrong! If you wish to say she would support anti-abortion legislation if that is what her constituency wanted, that would be accurate. Fcreid (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not argue hypotheticals. I like Kaisershatner's version; it sticks to the sources, which indicate that she believes that abortion should be illegal in most circumstances. What action she would or will take based on that belief is a matter of conjecture; I think the reader can draw their own conclusions. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not hypothetical at all. She specifically answered the question as quoted in the RS I provided above, and the answer was she would do only what her constituents voted. Can that fact not be woven into this synopsis of her personal beliefs? This is obviously a scare tactic to synthesize that she represents a threat to Roe v. Wade and would outlaw abortions, but there is no citation to support that. Fcreid (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, she has no power to ban abortion given Roe v. Wade. That can be changed in two (and only two) ways, a constitutional amendment and a change on the Supreme Court. She has already said she supports a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion (which reminds me, I think I'll add the youtube clip as a source). If she supports a constitutional amendment and she believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it is not unreasonable to suggest that as President she would appoint judges that agree with her. I'm not saying she would break the law. I'm saying she would do everything in her power within the law, if elected, to outlaw abortions.GreekParadise (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow Wow let's take a step back, we are getting into major bias territory here, "as President she would..." what what what? You just took huge leaps there without blinking. Let's just stay with the facts Palin is a "nominee" for "Vice President". Hobartimus (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire line seems unproductive. It's common knowledge that Palin is "an outspoken abortion opponent". Kaisershatner's wording accurately and concisely conveys her position on this issue without inflammatory wording or spin. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, Greek! That's why this entire nonsense is pure provocation. If you want to state her personal position on abortion, do so without embellishment. However, don't synthesize nonsense about outlawing abortion and other stuff that is pure conjecture and entirely outside of her purview to control. And, even if those external forces were to overturn Roe v. Wade, she has also made it clear that (at the state-level, at least) she would abide by the will of her constituents. Why is it so important to synthesize more than the facts we know? Fcreid (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We've described her position as related by reliable sources. If you consider it "nonsense" that someone a heartbeat away from the Presidency just might have an impact on the status of Roe v. Wade, then I don't see a lot of room for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, she would "abide by the will of her constitutents." That's a meaningless statement. You're saying that she would not go out and personally arrest people for having abortions if it's not illegal? LOL. The point is she advocates for CHANGING the law to make abortions ILLEGAL. That's not hypothetical. That's what she would do in every legal way she can. Hobartimus makes a ridiculous point that she's only running for Vice President. Since that's true, I guess NONE of her positions on ANY issues matter since the Vice President can't veto bills and can only act legislatively by breaking Senate ties. The point is a VP can become President at any moment. And if Palin becomes President, she will everything she can to change the law so that it becomes illegal for any woman (including a rape victim) to have an abortion if the woman's life is not in danger.GreekParadise (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You made the ridiculous point that "As President" she will have the power to change abortion laws. And then you top it off with the completely unsourced "And if Palin becomes President, she will everything she can to change the law so that it" which I won't dignify with a response as that's just too biased a statement. Hobartimus (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and here she says "life" not "health." http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

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

The 2006 questionnaire: ""I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent's life." [9] The article also says that the group she's a member of, Feminists for Life, holds the same position. And that she was allegedly willing to sign anti-abortion bills as governor, though that one is more shaky because it's hearsay. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So it sounds like the answer is "life" rather than health. She consistently says life and only spokesperson says health once and unquoted.GreekParadise (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about we go with "Palin believes abortion should be illegal in all cases except where a woman's life is in danger." It is succinct. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I think it's clear that the consensus version is that she supports abortion "Only if the mother's health is in danger". Other versions do not seem to have consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone pulled the rape and incest out after my comment, so it's good now. We'll see how long it remains out. Fcreid (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole bit about Palin thinks abortion "should" be outlawed and "would" outlaw it are a bit much for the sources we have. I think it suffices just to say that she objects to all abortions, including those for victims of rape or incest, on personal values. If we wanted to translate these beliefs of hers into actions she would take, we need sources that say that she would or sources saying she already has signed such legislation. I haven't seen any sources showing legislative action taken or wanted to be taken.--Loodog (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. Palin is not a private citizen. She is running for office. Her personal views are irrelevant. (And as I repeatedly point out, many are personally "opposed" to abortion for themselves or their families but would not criminalize the act done by complete strangers. Biden, for example. We could say Biden opposes abortion. And he does. He said so in his Meet the Press interview. But he's pro-choice.) What matters are Palin's political views. And she supports a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape. Need a source? Watch the youtube debate I cited.GreekParadise (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

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

Why I like this:

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

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

Works for me. I would say "... except in cases where the woman's life is in danger", just on grammatical grounds. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibson ABC interview 09/13:

Gibson: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?

Palin: That is my personal opinion.

Crystal clear. She makes the distinction. It's absurd to attempt to censor this on the grounds of the words being "scary". Their scariness or otherwise matters not one iota. They are the correct words for the cited violations. And it surely notable, not least to women, that a candidate for vice-president holds the personal opinion that women impregnated by rape and/or incest should be denied abortions. The Serbs, whose war on civilians included impregnation by rape and even, in some cases, by forced incest, held Bosnian Muslim women captive in what became known as rape-death camps. Those who survived long enough to be impregnated were kept alive until their pregnancies were too far advanced for termination. Then they were released into what remained of their communities. Civilized people were in consensus: they regarded it as, er, "notable" that, in the opinion of the Serbs, women impregnated by rape and/or incest should be denied abortions. Why should this view be any less notable when it's held by a candidate for the second-highest public office in America? Writegeist (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with Loodog's wording. Writegeist (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I must be one of the few who didn't see the Gibson interview or read the transcripts. If that is verbatim, so be it. Let it roll, with the wording as suggested by MastCell. Fcreid (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, changed it.--Loodog (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond any of it. It is needless words which are only inject to bias the readers and divert attention. Why does Obama's wiki say he's African American? When many would argue he isn't african american at all since his father was not only part arab but was an african immigrant. I could find all sorts of selective quotes from varioud articles related to it, and turn what could have been a simple phrase into several phrases which could have been better spent just giving the most basic facts. They haven't done that there, and I don't think it should be done here.66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

She's a politician. This is a political issue. I understand the concern for accurately reflecting her view with reliable sourcing, but beyond that I fail to see the problem. Obama's skin color doesn't have anything to do with Palin's views on abortion. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So I take it you've never heard of the words "identity politics"?66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Identity politics: "Identity politics is political action to advance the interests of members of a group whose members are oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or neurological wiring)." Where does that say anything about a person's opinion on, say, abortion? If you're talking about Obama, take it to his talk pages, please. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do. You asserted my comment was not related to politics, and you were entirely wrong. If the standard exists in the Obama wiki, then it's going to exist here. Period.66.190.29.150 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This was the exact point I was addressing. Neither the outlawing or the making illegal is supported in the sources. The sources just say what her personal beliefs regarding the practice are. We need a source saying "Sarah Palin would illegalize/criminalize/outlaw abortion", or that she would like to. All that's supported is personal unlegislated belief.--Loodog (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we can say "criminalize" or "outlaw" we need a source that backs that up. Several sources preferred.--Paul (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here she says, in an official debate, that she would support a constitutional amendment to "outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEN-c0zRH1c She says she would "support the proposal" and "stand by it" The questioner makes clear she's discussing a constitutional amendment rather than legislation (that would be currently unconstitutional). Pretty clear-cut and from the Governor's mouth. You can see her saying it yourself.GreekParadise (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube isn't a reliable source. Kelly ^hi! 03:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is when it's Sarah Palin herself saying it in an official C-Span debate. Right? Kind of impossible to dispute. So does that officially end the argument on this? Has anyone who has watched the first minute of the video any qualms with including Sarah Palin's position on abortion in this article as follows?

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

Youtube is a fine source when the actual interview is being shown. Transcripts are preferrable to interviews, but ok. She doesn't say (nor is she asked) that she would sign legislation to outlaw abortion, merely that she would show support for a third-party's constitutional amendment to outlaw it. It's weaker than her actively passing legislation, but it is sourced. We can include the note if you want.--Loodog (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Her record in Alaska doesn't support the claim that she wants to use her power as an elected official to "criminalize" abortion. "Criminalize" is awfully POV, and I don't see this as being as clear cut as some think it is.--Paul (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not use the word "criminalize." I said "make abortion illegal". See text of article. If you'd prefer the word used in the youtube debate, "outlaw," I'm OK with that too.GreekParadise (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why rape and incest are specifically mentioned, when the rest of the statement reads she believes in one exception: when there's "a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued."[181] When I added that point about the doctor and the reference, I removed rape and incest deliberately. Saying it this way strikes me as sensationalist: She's against all abortion unless a doctor says the woman will die! Even if there's rape! or incest! All of it! I would prefer the shorter and equally comprehensive version I had inserted: She believes abortion should be illegal except in cases of "a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued."[181] If people care a lot about documenting her view of the law, I would be fine with including "and has expressed support for a constitutional amendment to that effect." Thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I could try again to explain, but I'd just end up repeating what's above. I'd recommend taking a look above starting with the first mention of Seattle times.--Loodog (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. Add my opinion to those who think the singling out of rape/incest is not productive or useful. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about making it productive by noting her differences with McCain. "Palin's view differs from McCain's in that McCain would make exceptions for rape and incest. [source]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin considers herself a born-again conservative Christian. She supports... outlawing nearly all abortions (even in cases of rape or incest)..."[10] "In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as "pro-life as any candidate can be" and has "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion.""[11]

When running for governor: "This summer, in a candidate survey by the anti- abortion Alaska Family Council, Palin answered "Yes" to the question: "Would you support legislation and/or a constitutional amendment to clarify that the state constitution does not contain a right to abortion?" As to what she'd do as governor, Palin said, "I would side on the side of life if legislation were passed by the people's representatives in the state of Alaska, the Legislature, but ... there is no law that I could sign in office that could ever supersede the Supreme Court's ruling.""[12]

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

Knik Arm Bridge

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

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

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

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

I've removed the section, at least for now, based on a closer examination of the given source. There were numerous factual inaccuracies in addition to the ones cited above, including claims of an extinction threat to beluga whales (nowhere stated in the source) and claims by Democratic opponents of Palin that were cited in this article as straight facts. Kelly ^hi! 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Hobartimus (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should have mentioned here that it was also redundant to the "Bridges to Nowhere" section immediately above it, where the Knik Arm Bridge is already mentioned. Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. The material in the article was clearly wrong about the date the project was proposed and its proximity to Wasilla.--Paul (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure when you wrote this, but I long ago removed that section under Bridge Redux REDUX above. Don Young's Way does provide an "alternate route" from Anchorage to Wasilla which was one of its main selling points.GreekParadise (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the map? Wasilla is nowhere near the bridge! I suppose it could be considered an "alternate route" if you wanted to drive approximately the same distance as the existing route, but on a different highway. But are you suggesting the purpose of the bridge is to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla? Looking at the map, that's a silly suggestion. Kelly ^hi! 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's the purpose of the bridge according to many people including Wasilla's mayor. Please read this: http://community.adn.com/node/131399. We can include it as a source.GreekParadise (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as the article points out, the official name of the bridge is Don Young's Way. I don't know who removed all the references to the official name of the bridge. If you oppose giving the official name of the bridge, please say why. Someone even removed it from the "see also"!GreekParadise (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote says Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor in Wasilla, has said the new $600 million crossing could lower traffic congestion in the fast-growing community. It doesn't say the purpose of the bridge was to link Anchorage to Wasilla, which, looking at the map, is kind of a dumb idea. They're already linked by a route of approximately the same distance. Also, the official name of the bridge is "Knik Arm Bridge, as our article on the bridge states. Kelly ^hi! 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, did you read the article? Just because you think the mayor of Wasilla has a dumb idea doesn't mean that the purpose of the bridge is not to connect Wasilla to Anchorage. It clearly is an ALTERNATE route. And the official name of the bridge is "Don Young's Way." I'll be happy to change the name of the other wikipedia article, if you wish. But read the source. It clearly documents what I say. And since it does, I see no reason not to put it back, unless you or another wikieditor can think of one. (Also the claim that she canceled the Knik Arm Bridge is false and should be removed immediately.) I'll remove the false claim and begin putting back in the Don Young's Way name. I'll wait on the "alternate route" a few minutes to see your response, but again, it's hard to dispute the mayor of Wasilla with your own point of view.GreekParadise (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said she cancelled the Knik Arm Bridge? Also, look at the other opinions above. Our article says the bridge has been proposed since 1955, and just because the current mayor says it "could ease congestion" doesn't mean the purpose of the bridge is to link Anchorage to Wasilla, when a glance at a map shows that's not the case. Kelly ^hi! 02:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the name, "Knik Arm Bridge" returns 23,500 Google hits[14] while "Don Young's Way" returns about 3,000.[15] which tells me the former name is the most common usage. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I'll tell you this much - I read the AP article, but I also looked at other sources, and came away convinced that the AP article was not a reliable source. If you bothered to look at any of the maps, either that Kelly linked above or those in the sources and external links for the Knik Arm Bridge article of which this PDF map is the best, you yourself could see this - any route over that proposed bridge would only be a shorter route from Wasilla to Anchorage if you first moved the city of Wasilla at least 6 miles to the west. More importantly, the actual reason for the bridge is given here, and has nothing to do with Wasilla. Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article, realize that sometimes the media is just wrong, and when it is the responsible thing to do is ignore the sources that don't have a significant connection to reality. GRBerry 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I can see including the "Don Young's Way" alternate name in Knik Arm Bridge, but why include it here? Especially when a direct "see also" link (Knik Arm Bridge) has been changed to a redirect link (Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)). Why change a direct link to a redirect? Kelly ^hi! 03:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Because one of the reason this bridge was criticized as a bridge to nowhere was because people thought it typified pork barrel spending and the name was part of it. \(I personally heard of Don Young's Way years ago and only heard of Knik Arm three weeks ago when I started researching this, but I'm not from Alaska. I don't want to change the link. I just want to mention in the body that it's named after Don Young, as I had it before. This was the old text:

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

As to GRBerry's point, call it unreliable crud if you like, but it's the Associated Press and the Mayor of Wasilla and the Anchorage Daily News against your say-so. I've read the criticism, that it's actually 6 miles longer. (I've done a lot of research on it.) Critics have said that. And proponents say it would be an alternative route when the main bridge is crowded. I have looked at the maps. And I can provide at least five more sources talking about it as an alternate route to Wasilla. I never claimed it was the ONLY reason for the bridge or even the primary reason for the bridge. But it clearly is a reason and one I see often talked about in all the sources on it.GreekParadise (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any other sources that say the purpose of the bridge is as a route to Wasilla? Because the AP article obviously has issues. (The Anchorage Daily News did not write this article, they just reprinted the AP piece.) You're synthesizing something from the Mayor's quote that simply isn't there. And I still don't understand the need to include both bridge names here, when the reader can simply click on Knik Arm Bridge and learn all about any alternate names. I tend to see it as an effort to backhandedly link Palin with Young, who is actually one of her political opponents and a controversial figure. Best to keep it as neutral as possible by simply using the most common name. Mention Young all you want to in the bridge article. Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to say she's an opponent of Young somewhere in the article fine by me. I never said that or even implied it. The bridge's official name is Don Young's Way. He was chair of the House Transportation Committee. It was seen as his boondoggle. In fact, if he hadn't named it after himself, it might have escaped scrutiny. I think there are many people like me, who don't live in Alaska, who have heard of Don Young's Way and never heard of Knik Arm. That's the reason to include it. And after all, it's the actual name of the bridge. "Knik Arm" is unofficial.GreekParadise (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Did you read what I posted above about common usage? Why keep repeating yourself and making me repeat myself? Just make your argument once, let other people comment, and consensus will emerge. As I said, that mayor's quote does not at all address the reasons for building the bridge, just a possible side effect. You're taking too much from it. Kelly ^hi! 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I will revert. I have already found five sources that talk about the Wasilla-Anchorage connection, including the conservative Washington Times, the independent Congressional Quarterly, and several in Alaska. It was you, I think, that made the original change, and you did so without a single source to back you up. I can provide a dozen, given time. And you can't find one. Find me a source that says that the distance to Wasilla had nothing to do with it. It's in practically every article I see on it. And if anyone disagrees, I defy you to find me five sources that dispute the many, many sources I have found from every political perspective, from every geographic perspective, and from the Wasilla mayor herself.GreekParadise (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Will you please have a little courtesy and post the sources here for us to examine? There are 3 other editors here who have agreed with me, you are the only person arguing your point of view. Kelly ^hi! 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you simply reverting against current consensus instead of discussing? Hello? Kelly ^hi! 04:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Let's be perfectly clear what happened here. A well-sourced sentence that has been in the article for ten days and agreed upon by many consensus editors was changed, with NO SOURCE to back up the change except WP:OR. I have given several sources, AP, CQ, Washington Times, Anchorage Daily News, and Wasilla's own mayor (!) and others I haven't even named yet: Sitka paper, Ketchikan paper. Unless some editor can provide sufficient notable sources that dispute my very fine reputable sources from all political and geographic persusasions and Wasilla's own mayor, my 30 sources beat zero sources. It's not a vote of the editors that counts; it's the fact that well-sourced information was replaced by unsourced information.

If you have even half a dozen sources saying that an alternate route to Wasilla is not a purpose of the bridge, I'd genuinely like to see them. Virtually every source I've read says it is. Now if you would like to modify the sentence, based on a real-live source apart from WP:OR, I am all ears.GreekParadise (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I added "spurring development" to the quote. I am more than willing to admit that there may have been more than one purpose for the bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of many sources describing a purpose of the bridge being an alternative route from Anchorage to Wasilla:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, for the record...There may be only one editor stating a case but that does not mean that other editors are not observing and willing to support, if necessary. GreekParidise was not a lone candle in the wind. His SOLITARY defense of his edit does NOT imply that it is the ONLY defense. This is true in other threads as well. --Buster7 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

One of your sources says, "the project would link "two strategic ports and facilitate the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline." He also said plans call for private financing in addition to state and federal money." Those are direct facts to the primary reasoning of the bridge. Why is the indirect benefit to the traffic in Wasilla so important to the article? Couldn't we list hundreds of indirect benefits and negatives to building any bridge? Are we (& sources) just picking the mayors comment out of hundred of other supportive comments that were given? I can see how it would be nice to include it to create an inference that Palin might be "helping out her home town". What else does the reader gain from knowing about the Wasilla reference in this article that they would also discover if they reviewed the sources? Theosis4u (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The nonconsensus edit should be reverted to the version established by Kelly. Hobartimus (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Did you read the section above? Maps [16] show that the proposed bridge over Knik Arm, near Anchorage is nowhere near Wasilla. See this other map with the bridge clearly marked [17] and see the comment of admin GBerry "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article," and I agree with that assessment. When the "Wasilla connection" was added back despite consensus that it is inappropriate it was also a BLP violation of this section of BLP [18]. Hobartimus (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for circumlocution lest I run afoul of criticizing any editor who might insist that this article was and remains accurate, despite any maps not supporting the claims. I agree a heck of a lot with your position. Collect (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that any editor read all five sources before commenting further on this topic. WP:OR is NOT acceptable as a source. If you want to add other reasons why the bridge was important other than "spurring development" and an "alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla", I'm OK with that. Feel free to add them, but you should first be able to find at least five separate mainstream sources that mention these additional reasons, just as I have. (And for the record, I could increase these five sources to 30, if I needed to.) I note that every wiki-editor that has objected to this has given a POV reason why. The question is not whether mentioning Wasilla creates a certain impression of Palin. Let's just get the facts.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So Theosis, find five sources that say "link ports" and "faciliate natural gas pipeline" and then let's add those reasons in.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I'm not aware of anyone discrediting the Associated Press article in any way. Heck it was repeated in the Anchorage Daily News. If anyone would discredit the AP, you think it would be a local newspaper since the bridge touches Anchorage.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I saw the maps, and I never claimed the bridge was "near" Wasilla (although in Alaska, 30-40 miles is pretty "near"). My claim, backed up by several sources, was that the bridge provided an "alternate route" from Wasilla to Anchorage. As it happens the proposed bridge is near Anchorage. And once you cross the bridge, the first named town you hit is Wasilla. GBerry's personal opinion that the Associated Press/Anchorage Daily News is "unreliable crud" carries no weight with me. There are mainstream media sources from the far right (Washington Times) to the center (AP, ADN, CQ, Mayor, Alaskan paper) to the left (Boston Globe) that mention one of reasons for the bridge is an alternate route to Wasilla. Even your source, Hobartimus, knikarmfacts.com mentions the Wasilla route(http://knikarmbridge.com/faqs.html - scroll to bottom). Where are the mainstream sources that DON'T mention it?GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Tat would be about as accurate as saying that the Tappan Zee Bridge provides an alternate route from New Rochelle to New York City. Collect (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the insistence on naming Wasilla when the city of Houston, Alaska is even nearer the proposed bridge? It's an attempt to insinuate in the minds of the reader that her provisional support is based on some kind of hometown thing. Kelly ^hi! 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on relying on your own research, rather than published sources, you should know that, according to Google, the town of Houston (population 1200), along the proposed road that would be built is four miles further away from the bridge than Wasilla (population 7000-9000)GreekParadise (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The fact remains that no one is Wasilla is likely to drive an additional ten minutes and pay an additional $3 each way in order to drive across a bridge. http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1729 is a "published source." Collect (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhraaammaaa warning/ Yahoo email hacked

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

I'm sure they want to, but such additions would be reverted under violation of WP:BLP. It is not the business of Wikipedia to publish private citizen's personal information. Jtrainor (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

very true, but what about information that is really public record type information, that was kept on these accounts? (letters, memo's etc regarding state business?) Just a warning that the drama potential of the incident is high. not to mention, that the incident itself might reach a notable position (i sure hope not though, it's stupid). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure she didn't use her personal Yahoo! account for official business, or, say, to help one of her political donors get a government job. I mean, that's something that the Bush Administration and Washington insiders do to avoid public scrutiny, and I've been told Palin is a maverick :) In all seriousness, it remains to be seen how much of an issue Palin's use of personal email accounts to conduct state business (and her subsequent attempt to privilege those emails) will be. If the good folks at 4chan really have cracked the account, that would be interesting, but we'll have to wait and see. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Appearantly the Guardian's blog has picked it up, don't know if that counts as reliable for this sort of thing. not linking. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not used as Reliable Sources. Oh yeah, and she's pretty MILFy, all right. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian report is written by a staff writer, see here, a foreign correspondent in the old parlance, so it hardly comes under the usual def of blog. Newspapers seem to be calling their columns blogs these days. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the AP is on the case. I think there's at least a 50/50 chance it's a hoax, but it's out there in reliable sources. I'd rather wait to see how it shakes out before we include anything in the article. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another site I saw this mentioned on said it was 4Chan where the emails were posted. So flip a coin whether they were real or not, but I wouldn't put it past them. As for the "propriety" of it, I wouldn't read too much into it. It's very common to be friends with people you work with or friends with people you also have business relationships with. If one such person shoots you an email at your personal account that contains one paragraph about business and one about personal stuff, I doubt any of us would take the time to split it out and reply to the personal from the personal email and the business from the business email. Now we're technically and security minded people - Palin isn't. To me, "emailgate" isn't worth a mention unless there is something really juicy there. --B (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's true, I'm sure the Secret Service are knocking on some doors right now. Hopefully they bring their waterboard. :) Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, your post just made me Laugh Out Loud. :-). I'm going offline, feeling rather good about the state of things.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While not an inappropriate response...if it was 'anonymous' through 4chan....it's likely proxied from here to eternity and not really traceable. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I snagged an archive of what was allegedly captured before everything disappeared from 4chan and generates the 404 error it now does. There was certainly nothing "interesting" in the thread I snagged... generic platitudes to friends and family and the like. Even if it's legit, unless someone is holding back some bombshell, this is just a fizzle in the pan. What was interesting to me was that, even among this less-than-savory crowd, there was still contentious dialog about Palin. I didn't think these guys even cared about politics! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It does look like it may be legit, though: [19] Fcreid (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is legit. Anonymous appear to be responsible. [20], [21] 89.139.48.100 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually the story doesn't say it's illegal, just that the person doing the FOIA request thought it was careless.The story also says that "Palin refused to comply with a public records request in June to divulge 1,100 e-mails sent to and from her personal accounts, citing executive privilege." --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that some of the sources are going down as legal action is taken. At this point there's no evidence of any wrongdoing - from what I've seen the alleged e-mails were personal or political in nature, not official. Kelly ^hi! 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Gawker link is here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

crap. I agree with fcreid, we should go slow with it. as of now the only thing are RS allegations of inappropriate email hiding from public records disclosure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking if there was anything illegal/incriminating there, we'd already have been hearing MSNBC and the New York Times trumpeting it. But we'll see. Kelly ^hi! 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

well...my bit of OR into this indicates that some of the anonomous folks posted the screen shots and stuff at /b/ and also sent material to wikileaks. wikileaks reviews stuff before posting so, there could very well be material to come out of this that would turn this back into the VP-announcement-wheel-war-frenzy of a couple weeks ago. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP says the following: "The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago — prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate — after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides." Hackers break into Sarah Palin's e-mail account (AP)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FoxNews says the following: "Gawker complained that Palin has since “deleted” the account, and suggested she was trying to “destroy evidence.”" Palin’s E-Mail Account Hacked, Published on Web Site. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think John McCain broke the password on the account, to refute Obama's claim that he doesn't have hacker skillz. Kelly ^hi! 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this shows the wisdom of John McCain's distrust of email! :-)--Paul (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, since the Secret Service is now involved with law enforcement[22] that it's probably worth a footnote at a minimum. rootology (C)(T) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's all over the news. If it's still going tomorrow, I'd say add it. Damn Drudge, he made the link sound like it was Feds vs Anonymous, but it hadn't finished loading yet. rootology (C)(T) 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN says the FBI and the Secret Service are on it. Somebody is screwed, I think - this shit is felony-grade. Kelly ^hi! 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I also understand there are indications she may have been in dialog with some exiled member of Nigerian royalty in some sort of scam to launder $18,000,000.00USD (EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS) in exchange for 35% of that for her services. CNN will certainly latch onto that! Fcreid (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should detail the e-mail thing in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. ;-) Kelly ^hi! 12:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The 4chan dude who broke it said he was afraid of the FBI during he did it. However interesting this is it has no place in the article right now per WP:RECENTISM. Hobartimus (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Concur. This news is yesterday's flash in the pan and was not even noteworthy then. I read the "confession" from Rubico (who claims it was he who actually accessed the account/violated the law), and he said he went through every piece of mail in her mailbox specifically looking for something to derail her campaign but found nothing. It shouldn't be in here unless and until it bears meaningful fruit beyond the tin-foil hat bloggers. 138.145.4.3 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone promoting the "theft" here. As for prurient interests, this does not appear to me to be obscenity. From what I can see this is a discussion regarding whether the fact that Sarah Palin's email account was hacked and leaked onto the internet for everyone to see should be mentioned in this article. I see the Recentism argument but I do think the issue is relevant to Sarah Palin.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Prurient: "Uneasy with desire; itching; especially, having a lascivious curiosity or propensity; lustful." I, in fact, state that the desire to find Palin's emails and publish them precisely fits the dictionary definition furnished.

That's your opinion, which looks like WP:OR. I'm more concerned with the facts and whether this incident will have an effect on the outcome of the campaign. If so, I think it deserves a mention. If it's forgotten by tommorrow then no. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a dictionary qualifies as "original research"? Somehow that does not seem like the official WP definition of "original research." I, on the other hand, tend to view dictionary definitions as not being "opinion." Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the definition fits the situation. I personally do not see anything "lustful" about the situation. You seem to disagree.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Personal life section

Well, the religion part has somehow grown to approximately 3/4 of the section on her personal life. Information on her hobbies, etc., has been cut out as "propaganda",[23] so we have a problem again with undue weight on religion. I propose cutting out the mentions of the single prayer she made in the Wasilla church, which now takes up about half the personal life section. Kelly ^hi! 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Kelly, but stand by for a firestorm of opposing opinion. As far as I'm concerned, far too much weight has been placed on this one commencement speech to these ministry students, but there's just nothing else to support the weight that this speech represents a persistent theme with her. You would think there would have been homage paid in multiple other venues, like city council hearings, gubernatorial addresses, etc., where the impact would have actually been meaningful. There's just no evidence of that. Moreover, we have firsthand accounts from both friends and enemies that Palin didn't wear her religious beliefs on her sleeve. Given that, I write off the speech as pandering to a specific audience. Others won't let it die as easily, I assure you. Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and where did Erik the Red get consensus to remove the "gushy" stuff? Frankly, that's one of the few actual meaningful things about "Palin the person" in this biography. That needs to be added back soonest. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think her religion is a reasonable topic to some extent, given the role it has played in her public persona and in reliably-sourced coverage of her. That said, I do tend to agree with Kelly and Fcreid here that the quotes and the lengthy exposition of that single prayer are jarring. There's actually nothing remarkable about that prayer, which is why it seems so odd to rehash it at great length. Palin can't be the only American to pray for the safety of the troops, or for wise leadership, or for the success of a project - I suspect hundreds of millions of Americans do this. I'm fine with devoting some space to her religious beliefs as they've impacted the campaign and national discussion, but I'd agree that the current paragraph is lopsided and reads oddly. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, the only compromise we've been able to establish creates a "ransom note effect" with bits pulled out of context to make it look like she's a total loony! Fcreid (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, no offense intended to those whose religious beliefs are actually so intense. Fcreid (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I think the (third?) paragraph, which recounts her church membership history and personal statement of religious beliefs, is appropriate and neutral. The last paragraph, with the long exposition about the prayer, is in fact "jarring" (thanks for the awesome word, MastCell!). I'd be happy with leaving the third paragraph and trimming the fourth. Thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Were you referring to the personal hobbies part? Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's what I removed that was undue weight. Was her completion of marathon in less than four hours a significant part of her life? No. The rest of the stuff is written in such a way that it serves to enhance the persona she's created of a folksy, down-to-earth everyday American, or "hockey mom". If we can reword the material so that it does not carry this tone, I'd be all for including it. (The hobbies, not the marathon). Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography, and those are her personal hobbies and accomplishments. It absolutely belongs in this article. Fcreid (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then let's write about it in a way that doesn't enhance her "like us folks" image. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that unduly enhances that image, Erik. They are all statements of fact, supported by multiple sources and have never been in contention. And I can't imagine how they could be presented in any more of a "clinical" manner. Fcreid (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And good luck sanitizing the "like us folks" image. That's like trying to hide the incredible hulk being green, or that linux is free. Covering it up it is an act of censorship and bias.--Canislupus01 (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the cutting back of the religion related excesses. Hobartimus (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Grsz, did you even read the section above? I left the part of the religion section that people agreed to leave. I only removed the undue weight part. Why the hell can't people express their point of view here first instead of blindly reverting? I would have held off if anyone had made an argument about retaining that info. This is hugely frustrating. Kelly ^hi! 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not as frustrating as the groups in here that band together to get their work done. Palin's religion has become a pretty big part of the conversation surrounding her. Yes, the paragraph was too big, but it's inappropriate for you to say you're "trimming" something, when you just go and delete the whole thing. The most important part of the discussion of her religion is the statement on Iraq, and that's the only part I left. Grsz^talk 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. If there is any mention of the "Iraq Crusaders onward by God's Will" nonsense, then the entire thing gets reverted to provide the full context, including that it was to a group of missionary students graduating after a year in a "Jesus Master's" program or something and that it occurred in the Wasilla church. Fcreid (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It does say that. Did you even bother to look? It also includes Palin's defense. Grsz^talk 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it slightly to add some additional qualifiers. Frankly, the audience, occasion, venue and the fact that this was a one-time issue that is inconsistent with any other available source describing her behavior with respect to religious beliefs cannot be overstated. Fcreid (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This statement without citation needs to go, however: "Palin's religious views have been seen as an issue by both her supporters and her detractors." If you want to revert to that statement that her religious views have come under attack in the press, that's fine. This statement is a synthesized lie. Fcreid (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, that was me, trying to come up with the most uncontroversial topic sentence I could. I did not mean "issue" to have any positive or negative connotations, as I believed "scrutiny" to have. I guess I failed. The current version is fine. Homunq (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded it to what I believe is an accurate, neutral and true account. Fcreid (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Email Hacked

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

This is under discussion a few threads up: #Dhraaammaaa warning. Let's centralize it there. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's try to keep this discussion to the one above.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the subject heading to Talk:Sarah_Palin#Dhraaammaaa_warning.2F_Yahoo_email_hacked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, it seems article on wikipedia may have helped the hacker gain access to the acct: [24] Professor marginalia (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

In discussion of this very issue, a few threads above, a number of editors invoked recentism as a reason not to include it (yet) in the article. If you feel some sections of the article are overly recentist, then the most productive approach would be to specifically identify them and suggest changes. Vague insinuations of bias rarely lead anywhere useful. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your getting at. I only learned of Wikipedia:Recentism when I saw a edit done to either Obama or Palin that listed Wikipedia:Recentism in the edit notes. I believe is was done by you MastCell. My comment here was simply pointing out that the sourcing of Wikipedia:Recentism in that edit made things very clear to me to understand the context of the edit. I'm not making insinuations, just saying that to specific state Wikipedia:Recentism is useful and could be done more often here. That it seemed to help the admins in managing the other articles pretty well. Theosis4u (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I apologize for misunderstanding your point. I think recentism is a useful concept which could be applied here as well, so it sounds like we're in agreement. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Earmark" vs. "Funding Requests"

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

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

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

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

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

The specific example I gave was, "Many of the earmarks that Palin had requested were criticized by Senator McCain...." It's somewhat imperious of you to say, "The term 'earmark' has been pointed out repeatedly not to be the correct term for funding requests from a state or municipality." (emphasis added) By my example, I pointed out that you were wrong. Only Congress can enact an earmark, but Alaska can certainly request one. Putting aside what the campaigns say, the MSM have used this formulation. JamesMLane t c 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof by iterated assertion does not work here. The term "earmark" has a specific meaning, and to use the average reader's unfamiliarity with how the system works to push a POV is errant. Actually, it is wrong. I have inserted "funding requests" without reverting the term "earmark." I trust that the phrase "funding request" will not get reverted yet again, as I think that is contrary to what is right. That you call me "imperious" is outre for sure! I do not revert stuff repeatedly. Collect (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks_definition.html "Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. " Official government definition. Collect (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

separate article on political positions

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

Palin Inconsistent remarks

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

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

I don't think so. Every politician makes inconsistent statements. Hers are not exceptional. We will list them point by point in their own right, but to devote a section to it is POV.--Loodog (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for http://www.factcheck.org/. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out every politicians' flubs and inconsistent remarks is beyond the sane scope of any article. And in general they have nothing at all to do with "credibility" at all. They have to do with our species. Collect (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

1. The Gravina Bridge goes to the Gravina Island. The bridge does not go to the airport, which lies on the island as the original said.

2. The official name of the bridge is Don Young's Way. Like it or not, that's the name of the bridge. You can't delete it because you don't like the name.

3. All sources say the Knik Arm bridge provides an alternate route to Wasilla. See talk page. Hobartimus has no source other than WP:OR.

4. Media section deleted with no reason given on talk page.

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

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

I asked you before not to make personal attacks see WP:NPA. See the section on this talk page titled "Knik Arm Bridge".[25] above where this is discussed and where administrator GBerry already said to you "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article" I'd consider that as a warning if I were you. This was said in direct response to your point 3 that you also bring up here. You were also warned by others to respect consensus and not to make nonconsensus edits which is a direct violation to WP:BLP. "The bridge does not go to the airport" ???? What's that supposed to mean? We have a whole Wikipedia article, see the article Ketchikan International Airport. Hobartimus (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You made it personal. You made unsourced changes. Give me one source to back up ANYTHING you have changed. You cannot remove sourced content or replace it with unsourced content based on WP:OR or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (GBerry's insult of the Associated Press as "unreliable crud" is also not based on fact, particularly when the AP is backed up by the Anchorage Daily News, Congressional Quarterly, the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, local Alaskan newspapers, and Wasilla's own mayor! Your only sources, Hobartimus, are WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKE IT and POV. If not, give me a source!GreekParadise (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What is unsourced that is currently in the article? I already asked you and you didn't name the statement. Please name the unsourced statement that I placed into the article and I will remove it/get a source for it. What's unsourced? The removal of the Anchorage-Wasilla connection (your point 3) was done per a consensus of editors, reinserting it without consensus would be a BLP vio, so that can't be it, I can't think of anything that's currently in and unsourced. Hobartimus (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to remove well-sourced information and/or replace it with false information. There is no source that the Gravina Island bridge goes directly to the airport. All the sources say it goes to the island and then there's an access road. It may seem silly but the original is true and your edit is false. Period. Don Young's Way is a well-sourced fact. It's the name of the bridge. Why do you want to remove it? Any reason other than POV? Anchorage-Wasilla is a well-sourced fact supported by some editors, dozens of sources and with ZERO sources to the contrary. Why have you removed the truthful, well-sourced information? Any reason other than you don't like it? The fact that several editors also don't like it because of their own research is irrelevant. You simply cannot delete well-sourced material you don't like based on your own edits.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the article that it directly goes to the airport? I didn't put it there the word directly but if it's there delete the word directly then. I hope you don't deny that it does link the International Airport with the city. I removed Anchorage-Wasilla per consensus above on this talk page. Did you read that discussion that decided that it was inappropriate? Hobartimus (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this points up a major problem with the "Bridge to Nowhere" section of this article. It's full of odd and tangential trivia which have little direct bearing on Sarah Palin, yet which provide an endless opportunity for argument and ill-feeling. The section should be much shorter, and it should focus on Sarah Palin's actions with regard to the Bridge, and the reaction to them, rather than bogging down in details about which roads the bridge connected, or naming issues, or whatever. Fight about those in the bridge articles, not here. The bottom line is that the Bridge connected sparsely populated areas. That should take up one short, declarative sentence, and the remainder of the section should discuss Palin, not the various bridge names, or Congressional amendments that Palin had nothing to do with, or the population of Gravina Island, or the price of tea in China. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this relates to Palin and that's why H wants it removed. The first statement Hob added was false. I had that Gravina Island was sparsely populated and to be fair, someone asked that the airport be included. I was fine with that. But then H made the true statement false. As to the second statement, it's the official name of the bridge. As to the third, it relates to Palin because Wasilla is her hometown. And the fourth relates to Palin's use of the bridge. As H has given no reason or sources for his changes (and he's had an hour to think of them), I will revert. None of H's changes, other than the media criticism, affect the length of the section, and the media criticism relates directly to Palin.GreekParadise (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not play games please. You know that the media criticism is in the campaign section because it happened in the campaign, there was no media criticism before the campaign started rather she was praised. You know very well that it's in the campaign section, I qouted it to you in full on your talk. And the Anchorage-Wasilla connection was removed per consensus. Reinserting it without consensus would be a BLP vio. Hobartimus (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

1)I don't agree with 1) but if you do decide to reinsert it I only ask that you then delete it from the campaign section so there will be no duplicate sections (see I used duplicate per your earlier request when we discussed this).

2)What's the rush with 2? The Anchorage-Wasilla connection, I didn't count but clearly 5-6 editors at least disagree with you on this what's the need for urgency? On sources, I could bring 100 sources that discuss Palin's glasses, that doesn't mean that it can't be reverted unless someone "brings sources that deny" statements about Palin's glasses. That's just silly, we have millions of sources it doesn't mean that the material is appropriate to the article, this is why we have discussions, consensus... To decide if it's apporopriate to put in a biography. Hobartimus (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, H, for at least beginning a discussion on this. That's what I've been trying to do for over an hour. On 1), I want to refer to the more detailed discussion in the campaign section without duplicating it. On 2), Buster supports me and you and Kelly disagree with me. Possibly GBerry too, but I'm not confident he has read my other cited sources. You have conceded, have you not, that the Anchorage-Wasilla connection was one reason for the Knik Arm Bridge. Right? It may be the primary reason since it's in virtualy every source on the topic and the Wasilla Mayor seems to think it so, but I haven't said it's the primary reason. It's "a" reason. And it clearly relates to Palin. So my question for you, that I've been trying to understand for several hours now, is why DON'T include it? What's your reason? The only reasons I've heard so far are WP:OR, and I insist those are not valid.GreekParadise (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insist that people must endless repeat their arguments over and over. I spent some amount of time reading the official proposal documents for the bridge (linked from the Knik Arm Bridge article) and can't find anything about Wasilla. The proposal seems to be all about developing the area across the Arm from Anchorage and general improvement of the Alaskan transportation infrastructure. To insist on identifying the purpose of the bridge as being an alternate route to Wasilla is so much undue weight it's just silly. I suppose you could say the Golden Gate Bridge was constructed to provide an alternate route from San Diego to Seattle, and be technically correct, but it wouldn't belong in an article about a politician who supported the bridge. Kelly ^hi! 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The official proposal documents that I read also mention Wasilla. See the last paragraph of http://www.knikarmbridge.com/faqs.html. Did you read something else I should be aware of? I don't disagree that development is an additional reason, but as far as transportation needs, the closest two cities it would connect are Wasilla and Anchorage. There is not a single named town, village, or settlement of any size across the bridge from Anchorage that is closer than Wasilla. And yes the Golden Gate Bridge does connect San Francisco and Marin County, its closest populated areas.GreekParadise (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the history to try to untangle this. Hobartimus has the last revert. I cannot be sure of all the changes because the silly warring in wikicomments has thrown off the diff algorithm (c'mon, guys, both of you... if you really have to add ALL CAPS wikicomments, at least leave the last guy's comments intact and add yours instead of reversing its meaning. That means you, Hobartimus.). As far as I can tell, Greek Paradise is right about all the issues being fought about here in talk, but there is also a significant paragraph about the relation to the presidential campaign and "lies" which is in contention on the page but not being discussed here.

I absolutely encourage both of you to find a compromise. GreekParadise may be right if the argument is just WP:RS, but if there is a concern about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE then the correct solution is compromise. I will now do my best to put in some kind of compromise; though I will favor GreekParadise because I feel that RS is on their side, I will not go 100% with their version. And then, instead of continuing the edit war, both of you talk productively to each other - fewer arguments and more productive proposals of actual article text posted here in talk. Homunq (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ps. I am also inclined against someone who does a "last word" edit-war revert without mentioning it in the ongoing talk page debate.

"What is the purpose of the project?

The project is being developed to create an efficient link between the operations and infrastructure of the two ports; build an alternate north-south emergency response and disaster evacuation route; establish the transportation infrastructure for existing and projected population and economic growth; and implement the Alaska legislative mandate to construct a bridge crossing of Knik Arm (AS 19.75).(from [26]) Not a word about Wasilla. The main discussion of this is here [27] people who revert against consensus as developed in the Knik Arm Bridge section violate BLP outright.Hobartimus (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think you hit the nail on the head with the POV and UNDUE thing. Perhaps a benefit of the bridge may be reduced congestion in Wasilla, as people would theoretically be able to cross the Knik Arm without having to drive around the Arm, through Wasilla. But this seems to me to be WAY down the list of purposes for the bridge, and to mention only the theoretical Wasilla benefit and no other purposes is way too much weight. I could support in the article on the [[Knik Arm Bridge, if balanced with the other purposes, but the only purpose for stating that here seems to be an attempt to induce a subtle POV that the Wasilla thing is the reason she has a measure of support for the bridge. There's no evidence for that. I think we should simply have a short clause that states the purpose of the bridge is to cross the inlet of the Knik Arm near Anchorage. Kelly ^hi! 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Weighting of bridge stuff - proposal

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

• Endorse it seems that BLP cannot be enforced to a desirable degree here some will just undelete the disputed material whatever BLP says. Hobartimus (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

since Gravina Island Bridge is already a merge of a Palin subarticle and structure article per the discussion page and category tags, it is a valid argument. It should follow the same rules of BLP under that cause. Duuude007 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Partially endorse: We should just say "the Gravina Island Bridge"; no airports, no populations, no nothing else. The wikilink is right there, and if anyone is curious about the specific areas connected or their populations, they can click it. The point is that this is a politically controversial "Bridge to Nowhere". Let's just say that, rather than trying to illustrate it with factoids which belong in the bridge article. As to here vs. the Palin subarticles, there should probably be a brief summary here with more detail, perhaps, in the subarticles. I don't think it should disappear entirely - it's a relevant part of her biography at a couple of key junctures - but it can be summarized more briefly and readably than we're currently doing. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, that's absolutely what I'm saying. Also, rather than bringing original or new material directly here to this biography, it should first be introduced, and included if appropriate, at the sub-articles. Then a summary should be brought here. Kelly ^hi! 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• A sentence or two is going to be more appropriate than a paragraph or two here, this stuff has often been grown to severely undue weight. The Big Dig, a far bigger and more important transportation project is barely even mentioned in the biography of Tip O'Neill, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives that did more than anybody else to get funding for the project. And that level of description is due weight; this level of description is far beyond due weight. The Interstate Highway System (properly named the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) gets two paragraphs in the biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower because it is widely considered one of his most important and enduring contributions. Those two examples demonstrate just how far beyond reasonable bounds coverage in this article has gotten. GRBerry 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Cmt - First, WP:BLP does not prohibit including things that might show the subject in a bad light; it merely requires attribution to a reliable source. Also, I've see WP:UNDUEWEIGHT thrown around so often on this page that even a lone six-word sentence on a issue was axed. That's ridiculous. There is clearly POV all around. Second, WP:CONCENSUS does not trump reliable sources. "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." Thus, mob rule is not the way things work here. Personally, I've given up trying to contribute to this page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody (at least not me) talking about eliminating this stuff entirely. I have no problem with "controversies" so long as they're neutrally worded and appropriately weighted. What we're talking about is that the detail and discussions belong in the subarticles, with appropriately-weighted summaries being brought to this article per Wikipedia:Summary style. Kelly ^hi! 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Part of the reason due weight versus undue weight has had to be discussed so much is the number of editors who want to put everything about their favorite issue in the main article. If new, these are editors who don't understand proper use of summary style. Another part of the reason is the editors who are erroneously believing that everything which can be sourced reliably (or sometimes even unreliably) must be included. These are editors who are confused on the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions; as being sourcable is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. If only experienced non-partisan editors were working here, these discussions and explanations wouldn't be necessary and you wouldn't see them as much. GRBerry 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, no. The purpose of the bridge, per the FAQ you linked, is The project is being developed to create an efficient link between the operations and infrastructure of the two ports; build an alternate north-south emergency response and disaster evacuation route; establish the transportation infrastructure for existing and projected population and economic growth; and implement the Alaska legislative mandate to construct a bridge crossing of Knik Arm.[28] Nothing about Wasilla. Kelly ^hi! 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, we understand that you are in support, since you've built gigantic walls of text on this page repeating yourself over and over, and insisting that if others don't also repeat themselves on this page, you have consensus. The point is that other editors have concerns about undue weight and problems with NPOV that you simply refuse to address. Kelly ^hi! 19:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, how do you propose including the alternate route to Wasilla but weighting it appropriately so that the information is accurate and NPOV, but not too long? Got any ideas? I thought we did a great idea on Gravina Island "(population 50), where Ketchikan's Airport lies". In six words, we conveyed both sides of the dispute. Do you have any solution to show both sides other than throwing away multiple reliable sources? Would you prefer a more direct route: "Some have criticized Palin because the bridge provides an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla, while others note that the bridge would spur development in Knik Arm"? I thought I said that very thing, short and sweet in my original:

"to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla"GreekParadise (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I agree on the repetition and the walls of text. However, it is baffling to see you say that GreekParadise does not address "undue" when they just said: we get to the question of "undue.". As to NPOV, I have yet to see any argument about NPOV that is not based in UNDUE, and doubt that one could be posed. Homunq (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the "alternate route to Wasilla" claim is not included in the FAQ on the bridge, and anyone with common sense looking at a map of the area can see why it's not stated as a purpose of the bridge, because such a claim is ridiculous on its face. Wasilla is nowhere near the bridge, and there is already a direct highway route from Anchorage to Wasilla. The "alternate route" claimed benefit is so far down in the weeds that it would barely rate a mention in Knik Arm Bridge or Governorship of Sarah Palin, much less here. Kelly ^hi! 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention false. The bridge by itself does not provide any sort of access or connection to Wasilla, it would need many Km of high quality road in addition AND the trip would be longer than the already existing road (depending on the shape of the future road possibly much longer). The Bridge and a huge long road together would provide access not the bridge by itself. The Bridge by itself is only good for allowing the city of Anchorage to start developing and building up on the other side and links to the Port MacKenzie area. The statement that the bridge provides a link between these two is a clear twisting of the facts and is designed as a misrepresentation so that the reader has the false image of Anchorage at one end of the Bridge and Wasilla at the other end of the bridge, you cross the bridge and you are there. Any look at the map shows that Wasilla has nothing to do with this bridge its nowhere near it and it wouldn't even get one KM shorter route to Anchorage. Not to mention the bridge was proposed in 1955 many years before Palin was even born. By selectively including and omitting these facts an agenda emerges. Administrator GBerry said regarding this Anchorage-Wasilla issue "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article" to GreekParadise and I agree with this assessment. Hobartimus (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's one source, the toll arm authority. How about the other five sources and the mayor?GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Original: "to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla"

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

"Near" is kind of a weasel word.

How about:

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

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

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

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

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

Is she really a journalist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin online popularity benefits the McCain campaign

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

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

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

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

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

Odd (mis)use of sources

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

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

I'm glad you brought this up, Mast- this is happening in several places in the article, as quotes are cherry-picked to support a statement, even if the thrust of the source article is the opposite. This all has to be looked at and corrected. Similarly, this article is including quotes in the footnotes to support individual points but then using the "ref name" system which attaches that quote to any time the ref is involved, even if that quote is not verifying the additional places in the article it is attached to. This gives an inaccurate, unbalanced presentation. I propose that we remove all such quotes within references and let our readers look at the sources themselves and thereby get the entirety of what the source is saying, not the carefully tweezed quote. I've duplicated a few sources with different quotes as a temporary fix, but I think we need to look at this. Further, today I removed from the text a quote that was actually a quote from an article, but read as if it were a direct quote from MOnegan, which is was not. We have to be much more careful about how we use quotes everywhere in this article and this needs to be fixed. Tvoz/talk 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere - Airport on Gravina Island

The original statement on the Gravina Island aiport is here:

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

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

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

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

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

Can we please keep the bridge discussion centralized instead of forking into multiple conversations? Jeez. Kelly ^hi! 17:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was purposely forking to separate out the four issues on which Hobartimus and I disgree. Editors may agree on some and disagree on some. This makes it clear and easy for anyone to read and review. (I told you I was going to do this in our discussion on my talk page about 45 minutes ago.)GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Turns out the discussion above mostly deals with the Knik Arm Bridge. For simplicity sake, let's deal with each change discretely. What are folks' views on the airport change?

A simple Wikilink to Gravina Island Bridge, without further exposition as to the reason for the bridge, is sufficient. People who want to know more can read that article. If details on Palin's support/oppositions are included in that article, a summary would be appropriate in Governorship of Sarah Palin. The permanent population of Ketchikan Island is not really an item of interest in the Sarah Palin BLP. Kelly ^hi! 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What about a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to it's airport on Gravina Island ?? Grsz^talk 18:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support just cutting out any explanation, since it is obvious from context that the worth is questioned and any details are at the sub-article. If we do keep the explanation, I think GreekParadise's version is more accurate. Homunq (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's great that in only six words "(population 50) where its airport lies," we manage to show both sides of a dispute which is detailed in the sub-article. That's why I like the original draft.GreekParadise (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Collect, that comment belongs in the discussion above, about the other bridge. I understand, it is hard to keep this straight. Homunq (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch, Homunq. I was going to say "No doubt, Wasilla is FAR from Gravina Island :-D but I think you wanted to comment on the section above."GreekParadise (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- the title of this section is plural as well, and I thought it therefore applied to plural bridges ... and, as far as I can tell, has precisely the same interested parties, for good or ill. If it is to be restricted to a single bridge, then the plural is misleading. Changed DYP to DYW while here in any case. Does anyone think that the entire Bridge stuff should be edited down to 3 or 4 sentences rather than dancing on the head of a pin about Wasilla being reached by the bridge? (Rhetorical question, I fear) Collect (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to singular. I think (hope/pray) that this tiny issue in this subsection has been resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree that the permanent population is relevant. Maybe include the number of employees at the airport? Kelly ^hi! 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My comments stand -- I suppose changing the name after the confusion arose will confuse still more people. So far, it appears the sections have exactly the same denizens, and some of the same issues are raised in both sections. Might we just actually discuss the issues raised instead of minutiae? Specifically -- ought this entire bridge stuff be editted down to a bare minimum instead of engulfing the entire article? It is running into COATRACK status rapidly. Collect (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a two or three-sentence summary of the issue as described in Governorship of Sarah Palin would be appropriate, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Kelly ^hi! 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As a draft, although I could not fully summarize the section under Governorship of Sarah Palin in three sentences, I ended up with the following (which would be preceded by a link to Governorship of Sarah Palin:

In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign, she supported the building of a Gravina Island Bridge, which had been nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere." The project was attacked as an example of pork barrel spending. As a result Congress stripped it of an earmark allocation. The money previously earmarked for this and another project, the Knik Arm Bridge, also known as Don Young's Way, was to be made available for transportation projects generally.[77]

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

With, of course, corrected footnote numbering.

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

Something like that would be ideal for the Governor section. The current political controversy would be suitable for the campaign article. Kelly ^hi! 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I m honored. Anyone who wishes to place it there is to be thanked! Collect (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Greekparadise, can you identify a particular change that seems particularly atrocious? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Start with the title. Why would you give up Bridge to Nowhere? I'll get the rest tomorrow.GreekParadise (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

snip, snip Aprock (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The title is rather idiotic. Grsz^talk 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I'm sorry you don't like the new section header. Let's work on it. I think the main point of Greek Paradise was that we need a header that people will immediately recognize as referring to the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere". So, that's what I was aiming for, without the ridiculous use of parens in the heading (which none of the cited sources use). Although I initially wrote "Bridge Controversy", I changed it to "Bridges that allegedly go nowhere" in order to address the concern of Greek Paradise. Do you acknowledge that he has a legitimate concern?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the current "Bridge controversy", but you'll have to persuade Greek Paradise.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The POV usage of "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been made excessively clear (comments which might have been viewed as attacking anyone are being totally avoided). The "RtN" name has attracted material which is wrong and errant, and iterated to boot. If we remove that name from discussion, maybe, just maybe, this section can get stable. The only section title which will now work is the simple one "Bridge Controversy." Collect (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Current version looks good in that it presents all the same factual information as the previous version, but in a far more neutral way, without the "gotcha" or "ZOMG HYPOCRITE" attitude. Let people read the facts, follow the links to the subarticles and sources, and make up their own minds. Kelly ^hi! 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

One fact that is missing is that the bridge(s) is in the general vicinity of Wasilla. Let the reader decide how to respond to pertinent information. To leave this fact out, considering the enormity of the state of Alasaka (40 miles is 'just around the corner") and the obvious advantage to her home community, is deceptive.--Buster7 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, did we lose a bridge somewhere???...How about, Controversy over Bridges..--Buster7 (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Tappan Zee Bridge is much closer to New York City than DYW is to Wasilla. Yet, it is not emphasized in that article. The DYW is more clearly seen as a means of egress from Anchorage than as a means of ingress to Wasilla, and its proximity to Wasilla was not considered a key factor in the choice of location of the bridge. Without sounding like a [sic] patroller, I think "large size of Alaska" is clearer. Collect (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why mention Wasilla instead of Houston, Alaska, which is much closer to the bridge? Kelly ^hi! 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not treat the whole thing as a ridiculous joke, Kelly, rather than a clear POV-push by you to use your own research to trump the Mayor of Wasilla, the Associated Press, the Congressional Quarterly, the Anchorage Daily News, the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, and the Sitka and Fairbanks papers? This is blatant violation of wiki-policy. And you know it, which is why you have avoided mention of the sources every time I do. I ISSUE YOU A DIRECT CHALLENGE, KELLY, TO TELL ME WHY YOUR OWN PERSONAL RESEARCH TRUMPS ALL OF THESE SOURCES. ANSWER WITHOUT JOKES, INSULTS, OR NAME-CALLING. READ THE SOURCES YOURSELF. STOP THE CONDESCENSION. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF DOING THIS OR NOT?GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have more bolding or capitalization? How do you really feel? Kelly ^hi! 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla is the 5th largest city in Alaska..an enormously large-sized state. HUGE! To ignore Wasilla is glaring.--Buster7 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fairbanks is larger...should we say it's an alternative route to Fairbanks? Kelly ^hi! 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Merge subsections

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

Fannie and Freddy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any evil that can't be traced directly to a Democrat? :) And yes, Freddie Mac did make illegal campaign contributions; they paid a then-record fine to the FEC in 2003 for funneling money to Michael Oxley, Republican of Ohio, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Freddie Mac also gave generously to the Republican Governors Association, which to its credit eventually decided to return the money ([30]). Back in the days when soft money was legal, Freddie Mac was the 2nd largest contributor to the National Republican Party, second only to PhRMA ([31]). MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swamps and wetlands

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

Palins Church not mainstream Assembly of God

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

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

Pay cut as mayor disputed

[32]

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

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

I read the link you provided a "talking points memo" which was a bit oddly sounding for a title and also checked the edit you made [33]. What seems to be the problem what do you want to change the only thing I found was a $61,200 figure in your link what would be an exact 10% pay cut. It seems the council actually passed a resolution to achieve this so this must be researchable. Hobartimus (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found this old article reprinted recently [34] but it has no number except that the salary of Mayor is 68 000. Hobartimus (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, DF, you are welcome to add it back into the article. I've been bold enough for today. Here's the diff where I removed it: [35]. Homunq (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New pic

I hope you all like the new pic at the top.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. I like it better than the pic with her facing right and away from the page. Just cruised through the entire article (a rarity, as the politics parts bore me), and it's actually shaping up into a pretty fine article. There's a tad too much niggling detail in places, but I appreciate that represents the ebb/flow and ultimate compromise of diverse opinion here in talk. I think we've wasted too much space on the Yahoo email incident, but I suspect that'll become more obvious when the incident fizzles into obscurity. In one technical note, there is also a big white space near the top and after the "First Term" section, but I won't attempt to fix because of my lack of skillz. Overall, however, the article is quite good and Wikipedians should be quite proud of the process that brought it to that point. Fcreid (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that the other picture was better -- the new one seems kind of blurry. Tempodivalse (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I used "not bad".  :) I agree. It is a bit blurry. Isn't there a "press photo" or something equivalent that WP is free to use? Fcreid (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is this your image Ferrylodge, because the linked Flickr page shows an NC license which would be incompatible with Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The information page of the image shows that email permission was sent to OTRS for processing. Hobartimus (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I found it at Flickr, but it was not sufficiently free, so I got permission from the copyright holder. Then I zoomed, cropped, and uploaded via OTRS. I admit that it's slightly blurry, but it's an improvement I think, since it's more formal and looking straight ahead. We'll have to keep an eye out for higher res pics.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the new pic way better than the previous one, although I do hope we can find one that's a little more in focus.--JayJasper (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was very much in focus just the face is a very little part of the complete picture from which it was cut out, so the face was blown up it looks pretty sharp on the original. Hobartimus (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ferrylodge, for your conscientious efforts. IMHO the previous picture was better. It showed a flesh-and-blood person in a real-life background, possibly looking off the page at some good moose. And it was in focus. The new picture is, by comparison, stilted and blurry. Can you post both pictures? Richard David Ramsey 22:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Facts please ... Sarah Palin and when dinosaurs lived

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR?

The article was recently edited as follows: "This was the same day that Palin gave a similar letter to Police Chief Stambaugh; Emmons as well as Stambaugh had publicly supported Palin's defeated mayoral opponent, John Stein."[37] The edit summary says: "The implication that the firing was because of their support of her opponent constitutes original research."

But there was no original research here. We were simply following the cited source, which says: "Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin. Emmons survived the loyalty test and a second one a few months later. She resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term."[38] Therefore, I'll revert.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming Position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big BLP Violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Change her position on Gay Rights.

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

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

It even has a citation for you to use.

cadennis

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

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

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

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

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

Polling and WP:RECENTISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I think it's fair to say that Palin's selection energized elements of the Republican base which had previously been a tad lukewarm about McCain; that seems borne out by a number of solid sources (e.g. [39]), and it moves away from minute-to-minute polling data to a more substantial political trend/event. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public domain video of Palin

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

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

Bridges to Nowhere - One Last Attempt To Remove POV

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

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

Here's the original version:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

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

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

...

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

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

Now the new version:

Bridge controversy

See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In paragraph 1, I support either the short version:

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

Or the long one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential witness?

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

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

"Van Flein said Wednesday that after listening in on Colberg's interview with Branchflower, he believes Colberg is not a 'material witness.'"[40]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ya beat me to it. But at least that will prevent me from getting blocked. For that reason, anyway. Meanwhile, please enjoy this SNL clip of Sarah Palin disguised as Tina Fey, and "Frasier" disguised as Hillary Clinton: [41] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

NYT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"bridge controversy" name change

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

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

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

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

One reason, Greek Paradise, is because "These days, when someone talks about the Bridge to Nowhere, they mean the Gravina Island bridge", according to Factcheck.org.[42] Sliming the Knik arm bridge with that name is questionable at best. But I'm willing to go along with the heading "'Bridge to Nowhere'" if you'll ease up on trying to re-write the rest.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like this published source? Kelly ^hi! 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how about "Brigde to nowhere controversy"

@Ferrylodge - More concise caption? Or sourced removed for no specific reason? [43] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reasonable thing to do, is to keep the "Brigde to Nowhere" section title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Jossi -- you are a wilful reverter and inserter of material in a section under discussion. How can "reasonable" be associated with ignoring WP consensus rules? Collect (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

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

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

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