Talk:Sarah Palin

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

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—now in the section "Political Positions"—is better. It shows a flesh-and-blood person in a real-life background, possibly looking off the page at some good moose. And it's in focus. The new picture is, by comparison, stilted and blurry, even rendering indistinct the titanium spectacles which have generated thousands of backorders for the supplier. Can you move the previous picture back to the top position and, correspondingly, put the new picture into "Political Positions" where it may be deemed more fitting with the subject matter? Richard David Ramsey 22:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I hate to say it, but I actually preferred the old lead picture - I think it was higher-quality. Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the previous picture. The new one is blurry and not quite centered. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What if we fix the centering? The present photo seems so much more dignified, and is both forward-looking and formal. I like the old one too, but would hope that we can stick with this one (with improved centering) until an even better one is found.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the centering.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new pic that's not blurry.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new one also. But of the 3, I prefer the first. ( If truth be told, I actually would rather see the one from June-2008 with the dead fox around her neck!)(Just a little levity on a pleasant Saturday afternoon)......--Buster7 (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge- I think the recent pic you added is the most appropriate for a main bio pic. It's a little dark - can you lighten it? BTW, I sharpened the Carson City pic and it looks better. Let me know if you want to see it. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure it would be so great to lighten the current image, because it would make the people in the background more visible. Regarding the Carson City pic, sure, if you upload it I'd be glad to take a look. But it's propobably not so imoprtant now that we've got a new pic at the top. Cheers. (And let's keep the dead fox out of this!) Ferrylodge (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the "blurry" pic to the current one, and I also prefer the "looking away" pic to this one. In fact, I don't like this one at all.--Paul (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Paul, I made the blurry one less blurry, and put it back. Is everyone happy now?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that I still find the image blurry, and now, grainy. The first picture (where she's "looking away") is the best in my opinion. Tempodivalse (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have called the experts.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why F'lodge is so obsessed with imposing this mugshot as a replacement. The technical term commonly used by photographers for an image of this quality is "crap." It is soft, out of focus and grainy, and la Palin's soft, out-of-focus, grainy head is too small in the frame. Even a half-blind pig wearing lipstick could see that the first picture is more suitable in all respects. (If you don't like it facing to the right, flip it.) If the blurred one has a place anywhere in the article it's in Political Positions until something better becomes available. Come on F'lodge. Admit the substitution is a crock and swap the pictures. Please. At least until another good sharp full-face shot turns up for the header. — Writegeist (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed, dammit!!!! I'm not, I'm not.

Seriously, there are three pics. What do you think of the second one Writegeist (the one lower down in the article, in the section on "Budget, spending and federal funds")? If you really think the present one is crap, then we'll switch to one of the other two. Tell me which one, so that I can obsessively obey.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of the three images, I still think that the "looking away" photo (in political positions) is the best: it's the clearest, and it's not too dark either. Tempodivalse (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There's now a new version of the image up. The experts at the Wikipedia graphics lab suggested a wider crop, which makes the image much less blurry, and I also did a very low-grade sharpening. So, I think the present Carson City image is now much better than the original version of the Carson City image that I posted on 19 September. This present image is not permanent, but I think it's a decent stop-gap until we get a better one.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead pic is no better IMHO. She's even more pin-headed and still out of focus. The shot is cluttered: there's a bunch of microphones, a lectern on which you can just see speech notes by K. Rove ("And remember babe, it's a noo-clear, not a noo-cooler button"), a disembodied hand, and an acronym for the Aided Laser Inertial Navigator that la Palin uses to determine the precise direction in which to moon Russia from her front door (what her campaign aids call "practice in conducting U.S. foreign policy") if McCain gets elected and drops dead. Please! Swap the top pic with the Political Positions pic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We are getting perilously close to having to line up the three pics for a vote. Writegeist, I detect some lack of love for Palin, on your part. Might that be influencing your choice of pics?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

3 proposed pics

This is looking-away Sarah. Then we have fuzzy Sarah and dark Sarah. WHICH SHOULD GO AT THE TOP OF THE ARTICLE?

IMHO, fuzzy Sarah is hawt. I vote fuzzy. -- Y not? 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, IMHO, fuzzy Sarah is hot (note spelling). I vote fuzzy.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut F'lodge, were I lacking in love for this paragon, I would press for a very long shot that's totally out of focus. Hm. Come to think of it...  :~) — Writegeist (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Since dark Sarah isn't so dark anymore, I'd go with her. Otherwise, fuzzy Sarah will have to do. (Maybe I'm just tired of looking-away Sarah.) --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote for the left (looking away) picture -- its not dark like the right picture, nor is it blurry like the middle picture. And I don't see why the "looking away" should be too big a problem. Tempodivalse (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• 'fuzzy Sarah' is the best photo of Sarah. That's my vote.--Paul (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Dark Sarah for the win. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I like 'fuzzy Sarah'. The limp, Trig-like hand in the background is starting to grow on me. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I cropped it out -- Y not? 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Now that hand really bothers me. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Earmarks vs. Murkowski

Footnote 101 refers to Palin's earmarks compared to the final year earmarks of Gov. Murkowski, but a better comparison is Palin's earmarks by year vs. each year of Gov. Murkowski (it's possible that Murkowski's final year was his highest and his earlier years may be on par or below Palin's earmarks). Can someone obtain that information? WarrenFW (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That info would be helpful. In the mean time, that footnote contains reliable suorce that we can use.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are other problems with that text:

During 2008, Palin’s increasing aversion to federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation; according to her staff, she has requested $95 million to $150 million fewer earmarks or funding requests during each of her years in office than her predecessor Frank Murkowski requested in his last year.

• Palin’s increasing aversion to federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation - Not in the source provided
• fewer earmarks or funding requests during each of her years in office than her predecessor Frank Murkowski requested in his last year - WP:OR - Not in the source provided.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, the cited source (quoted in the footnote) says: "Palin has increasingly distanced herself from earmarking since she made her first trip to Washington D.C. to lobby Congress for money in 2000. And over the past year, it has been the leading source of tension between Palin and the state's three-member congressional delegation." This obviously supports the statement in the text that Palin’s increasing aversion to federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think growing aversion is good descriptor. It seems overly flowerly. It's not clear she had an aversion, and it's not clear that if she did that it was growing. Her earmark position may have been political in nature, and it may have always been the same. Aprock (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you like we can change it to this: "Palin’s decreasing support for federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation." I'll change it accordingly. Also, I don't think we need a tag in the article every time there's a discussion about how best to word something.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the tagging, but there were other issues brought up as well. I do think the issue of whether this is about earmarks or federal funding needs to be straightened out. I also think the years of comparison needs to be worked out. Alaksa is the biggest recipient of federal funding per capita, and it has been trending up over the last dozen years. Aprock (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The cited source refers to earmarks, which of course are a form of federal funding. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Earmarks are only one source of federal funding. It's very possible that federal funding increased while earmarks went down. Aprock (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is possible, and if we get a reliable source that crunches the numbers then we can include that info, no problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the cited source (quoted in the footnote) says: "For the 2007 federal budget year, the administration of former Gov. Frank Murkowski submitted 63 earmark requests totaling $350 million, Palin's staff said. That slid to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year. This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks or funding requests valued at $197 million." This obviously supports the statement in the text about fewer earmarks or funding requests during each of her years in office than her predecessor Frank Murkowski requested in his last year.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please either reply, or remove the tag that you put into the article. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ferrylodge here. Jossi seems to have gone on Wikibreak, so he's unlikely to reply. Kelly ^hi! 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this section a discussion of federal funding, or one of earmarks only? That seems part of the problem here. Aprock (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two possible spins on the earmark thing. One spin is that Palin's administration requested what is, in an absolute sense, an ungodly amount of federal earmarks for Alaska. The other spin is that Palin's requests were relatively lower than those of her predecessor. These are both, essentially, spin on the same set of facts. The quoted text is an example of the latter spin. I'd like to see if we can find a middle ground, perhaps by reporting that while Palin's requests still made Alaska the biggest per capita recipient of "pork", they did represent a decrease from the Murkowski.

As an aside, the New Yorker article on Palin this week quoted her on earmarks: "There isn't a need to aspire to live without any earmarks. The writing on the wall, though, is that times are changing. Presidential candidates have promised earmark reform, so we gotta deal with it, we gotta live with it, understanding that our senior senator [Ted Stevens], especially - he's eighty-four years old, he is not gonna be able to serve in the Senate forever." That sounds less like an "aversion" to earmarks than a pragmatic realization that they are no longer politically feasible, but I'm not sure if or how that source should be incorporated. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should aim for a balanced neutral presentation, but maybe you're overlooking the whole section on the bridges, which does refer to an ungodly amount of federal funding for Alaska, and even implies that Palin requested and obtained it (when actually Murkowski did that). So, if you're looking for balance and neutrality, it may well be that this article is already unbalanced against Palin on this issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to discuss this section on it's merrits. If you think the two sections should be combined, we could discuss that. I think it's important to remember that both of these issues are fairly significant. Although one could argue that much of it doesn't belong on this page. Aprock (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't one subsection of an article balance out and complement another one? Both of these subsections are part of "Budget, spending and federal funds". Wouldn't it be best to take a wholistic view of "Budget, spending and federal funds" rather than separately analyzing every separate part of it?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Subsections of basically factual material shouldn't be a he said, she said sort of presentation. Of course, they sould work together to present information, and redundancy and cross polination of information should be minimized. Could you elaborate on your wholistic view idea? My inclination would be to make three sections instead of two subsections. Aprock (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the current section on "Budget, spending and federal funds" seems NPOV right now, looking at it as a whole. The first subsection presents some stuff that arguably makes her look good, and the second subsection arguably presents some stuff that makes her look not-so-good. We're following the cited sources, we don't have further sources that contradict those cited sources, and there's no original research in this section right now, so it would be nice if the tag would be removed.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're losing me on this point. It's not about whether or not the sections make her look good or bad, it's about whether the information is presented in an unbiased manner. You may be suggesting that there are some problems with selectivity here, but it's not clear from what you've written. And again, regarding this specific subsection, I think it's important to clarify whether it's about earmarks, or federal funding. Aprock (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is not about "earmarks, or federal funding." It is about federal funding, including earmarks. One is a subset of the other.

I am not aware than anyone now maintains that this section has any original research in it, so I plan on removing the tag soon.

I am also not planning on inserting an "NPOV" tag, because I think the information is presented in an unbiased manner. We follow the cited sources. No notable sources have been rejected. If some people think the section makes her look too good, then they should provide reliable sources that will provide a fuller picture. Conversely, if some people think the bridge section makes her look too bad, then they should provide reliable sources that provide a fuller picture. I'm not aware that there has been any selectivity of sources here, beyond selecting sources that provide useful and notable information.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunt controversy?

Wow, Sarah Palin believes in hunting witches now. Whoda thunk it? :) I'm actually tempted to opine that this should remain in the article as a sterling example of press idiocy. Kelly ^hi! 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh! Well, it's gone now - it seems the editor put it in the wrong section. The MSNBC video was entertaining. The connection with Palin they chose to show is that in July she was at the church and, pressed to say something about the pastor, recollected that he had forthrightly prayed that she would be elected. And she was! Pingku (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Spooky stuff, I tell ya! MarkosAlex (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite Kelly's comments, I'm interested in this story. It clearly follows up on her evangelical religious background. How much did she know about Muthee when she made those comments? Does she agree with his stance that witches should be driven from the vilage? What's her real stance on freedom of religion and separation of church and state? Accusing the press of idiocy for trying to figure out who a completely unknown candidate for vice president of a major party is two months before an election is not helpful, or NPOV.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge Section Title

Not reaching consensus from the prior discussion, I'm going to suggest changing the title of something instead of the non-consensus title that is currently there. To avoid POV issues, I suggest changing the title to "Gravina Island Bridge". Since that's the title of the primary sub article, I don't see any problems with it. I'm not a big fan putting the word controversy into a section title, especially when it's not clear from the section what the exact point of controversy is. Is it that it was considered by some to be pork barrel, but not by others? Is it that Palin changed her position on the bridge? Aprock (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not just that she flipflopped, but that the McCain campaign had been strong opponents of the bridge even when she was "for" it. Now that she is on the same ticket, her contrast is so great, its farsical. The fact that she continues to repeat the phrase the majority of the times that she is seen hurts her credibility. Duuude007 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is any of that controversial though? It all sounds pretty straightforward to me. Aprock (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of the federal money for the bridges (or most of it) was already squeezed out of Congress during the administration of Palin's predecessor. Did Palin support or oppose that squeezing? After all, that squeezing is what was most controversial. The Amercian people never would have cared if Alaska wanted to spend its own money on this thing.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The very definition of contoversy, is the disputing of accepted fact. Thats what she does every time she repeats the "thanks but no thanks" comment, despite the facts that show it is false. And to be clear, the money from the pool was applied to the bridge anyways, and yes, she did support that. Per numerous citations in Gravina Island Bridge she consistently supported that, while running for governor in 2006. Duuude007 (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin said in September 2007 that the state was "about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.” So it appears that Palin decided then to stop the project, rather than keep bugging Congress for more money. All this is undisputed, right? But I'd still like to know whether she EVER supported squeezing Congress for money to fund these bridges. That's a different question from whether she supported building the bridges after Congress had already forked over 400 million bucks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, should a discussion of that controversy be in this section? It seems silly to have that not be included, and still title the section "Bridge Controversy", which is why I think a more factual title would be better here. Aprock (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So does anyone have any problems with changing the title from "Bridge Controversies" to "Gravina Island Bridge"? Aprock (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be changing the title sometime today unless there is futher discussion about the merrits of one vs. the other. Aprock (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the other bridge? Are we going to remove discussion of the Knik Arm Bridge from that section? If you want to get "controversy" out of the title, how about "Bridge proposals" or something like that?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for it to be in there in the first place.Aprock (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking any position right now about whether the Knik Arm Bridge is worth mentioning in this article. You may be correct that it's not. Evidently, your heading change is not just a heading change, and is instead linked to removing the Knik Arm Bridge from the article. I can't support the title "Gravina Island Bridge" if the section continues to discuss the Knik Arm Bridge, but I could support the title "Gravina Island Bridge" if there's consensus to remove discussion of the Knik Arm Bridge.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that "Bridge Proposals" or "Proposed Bridges" is a better title than "Bridge Controversy", but I don't see why the other bridge cannot be mentioned if the heading is changed. Could you explain this further? Aprock (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Adcock...Please delay your change. There has been day-long discussion yesterday. Out of respect for other editors, maybe we can wait till later. As I stated , you can change it to Bridge over the River Kwai...as long as the reader is presented with the facts. I would like to see Wasilla mentioned, but I understand and defer to consensus.--Buster7 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aprock, all I am saying is that the heading should describe what's in the section. Nothing more and nothing less. If both bridges are discussed in the section, then it would be fine to change the heading to "Bridge proposals" or "Proposed bridges". It would not be appropriate to change the heading to "Gravina Island Bridge" unless the material about the Knik Island Bridge is removed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not following you on the requirement to remove the second bridge here. A title does not describe what is in the section "nothing more and nothing else". Otherwise the title would be the section. I certainly agree that the text might have to be changed a bit, but the idea that the exact nouns that appear in section should be defined in the title seems a bit silly to me. Aprock (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

@Apcock...If you could read back to some of the previous talk sections you will see that there are some lines drawn in the sand...and alot of unresolved discussion. If I'm not mistaken even an edit war broke out...so...maybe...we can wait???--Buster7 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Aprock (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster7, it might help to spell his name right.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG...Very sorry Aprock...I honestly didn't notice my mistake...very embarrasing.--Buster7 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Aprock,I really don't see how to be any more clear about this. There is now substantial, considerable, significant material in the section regarding the Knik Arm Bridge. Therefore, the heading of the section should not give the impression that the section is solely about the Gravina Island Bridge. I do not see what is wrong with renaming the section "Bridge proposals", at least for the time being while more than one proposal are described in the section. You say that you agree that "Bridge Proposals" or "Proposed Bridges" is a better title than "Bridge Controversy", so why not support it?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact say that one was better than the other. I would support that change for now. I still think your argument against my proposed title doesn't make much sense, for exaclty the reasons I stated. Aprock (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there no mutally agreeable objective reliable source that both sides of this issue could cite as the main basis for the article? Fcreid (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That does seem to be part of the problem. There is some confusion as to whether this should be lumped into a general discussion of earmarks (or federal funding in general), about whether this is about the "Bridge to Nowhere", or about all the bridges in that original earmark, about whether or not the bridges were legitimate infrastructure, or about Palin's position on the bridges, or about the "Thanks, but no thanks." quip she made at the convention. Various themes have surfaced in this subsection and the parent section over and over again without much stability as a result. Aprock (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I avoid the politics parts for exactly this reason, but it's clear that derivatives of all those events you describe exist in wide variations and depend greatly on what "flavor" source you search. Moreover, the piecemeal inclusion of tidbits from an enormous number of disparate places is, at its core, turning this section into an original research project. It's certainly one that a reader would never find in any single source, and I suspect it leaves most bewildered on why. Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go back to Bridges to Nowhere, but I'm happy with Bridge to Nowhere. Whether it's singular or plural or Bridge(s) shouldn't make us delete the only obvious title for this section. The public will look for that title in the summary above and in Google. They want to known Sarah's position on the "Bridge to Nowhere" or "Bridges to Nowhere" not the "Gravina Island Bridge" or any other name. More than 400,000 google citations have used "Bridge to Nowhere" and more than 50,000 google citations (including NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, etc) have referred to both bridges as "Bridges to Nowhere". Only 18,000 have used "Gravina Island Bridge." Most Americans have not heard of Gravina Island. No campaign speech mentions Gravina Island. Palin (and McCain) publicly both use the term "Bridge to Nowhere" So let's use it. And I'd make it plural. The plural does not exclude the singular. The text explains exactly the truth, that is, that the nickname refers to the first bridge, or more rarely, both. As long as Knik Arm is included (and whether it should or should not be is a separate issue, I think it should), the title should be Bridges to Nowhere. That the first is more well known than the second is duly explained in the article.GreekParadise (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with this basic position. However, the current title is bad and we need something less sloppy while we hash out the eventual name.Aprock (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I did some history. The Bridge to Nowhere section was first added to the article by Young Trigg on the morning of August 28 at 8 am. From the morning of August 28 to 11 pm on September 19 (23 days), it remained some variant of "Bridge to Nowhere", sometimes singular, sometimes plural, sometimes in quotes, sometimes with parenthentical (s). But never a removal of the word Nowhere until yesterday. When it happened yesterday, a dozen or so of us immediately and vociferously complained that we wanted the consensus where it had stood for 3 weeks. Don't take out Nowhere. There were ugly edit wars to put it back. True, we "nowhere" supporters didn't all agree on singular or plural but we all agreed on Nowhere. It was put in by a Palin supporter (Young Trigg) and anti-Paliners like it too. When it was changed, the person who first changed it -- Ferrylodge -- said he did so because of the singular/plural problem and not because he thought "Bridge to Nowhere" is improper. I respectfully suggest that since the title was and has always been "Bridge to Nowhere", we change it back to the last agreed-upon consensus. And then we can go back to arguing over singular, plural, etc. Besides "bridge to nowhere" is the only title that Palin uses and that the vast majority of Americans know.GreekParadise (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the edit that changed the title was done here [1] without consensus by Ferrylodge on the 18th. The stated reason for the change was "scare" quotes not the wording of the title. She then changed it here [2] to "Bridges that allegedly go nowhere" based on some talk. When I undid these changes and removed the original scare quotes, Collect reverted it here [3], with the justification that the change had not occured by consensus. (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In sum, I think those that those who depart from the well-established consensus that existed from the time the section was created until yesterday have the burden of proof to change it. I suggest we revert now, and I strongly suspect that there are few editors who have a very powerful preference that it be a little-used name, rather than the common one everyone in America uses. Indeed, I think it should not have been changed in the first place without a detailed discussion on the talk page. And that was simply not done when it changed. So let's revert now. And continue the discussion. And see if anyone mightily cares that it not be called "Bridge(s) to Nowhere." As for singular, plural, or (s), or quotations, I don't care. Let the reverter choose.GreekParadise (talk)

So....Bridge on the River Kwai is out???? LOL...Considering the effort to have others realize the validity of his position we should leave some form of Bridge to Nowhere so the reader will find it.--Buster7 (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never been strongly opposed to having "Nowhere" in the heading somewhere. My main objection was to having parenthese in the heading, which I have never seen before and looks kind of weird. People here should also keep in mind that "Bridge to Nowhere" is a pejorative that some Alaskans won't like, and should keep in mind that the section currently covers two bridges rather than one. So, before we go back to the "Young Trigg" version (which I find a hilarious concept given the astoundingly controversial nature of Young Trigg), is there some way to get "Nowhere" back into the heading while easily addressing the two concerns I just described? Such as: "Bridges to nowhere or somewhere"?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't dispute that "Bridge to Nowhere" has negative connotations, it's not clear why this is an issue for the title alone. If something is reasonable for the body of the article, it should be reasonable for the title. It's how everyone refers to the issue, including Palin herself. We've discussed your second bridge concern before, and you still haven't explained why it shouldn't be in there. The section covers two bridges, two governors, an island, an airport, earmarks, and roads, just to name a few of the subjects discussed. It's pretty clear that the main subject of the section is the "Bridge to Nowhere", so it seems reasonable that it should be the title. Aprock (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that "Bridge to Nowhere" in the section heading was disputed from day one when Young Trigg inserted it.[4] I don't especially mind quotes in the heading, but parentheses is overdoing it. Quotes easily solves the problem of us opining that it's a bridge to nowhere. So, I'd prefer "'Bridge to Nowhere'" instead of "Bridge to nowhere". And I think we can easily solve the problem of more than one bridge by writing "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals". So, that's my proposal: "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals".Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reason for the edit there was not that "Bridge to Nowhere" was disputed, rather the length of the section was not long enough. If there is discussion about the title, either in edits or in talk, before the recent changes you made, it would be useful to see them here. That said, I do favor your proposal over the current title. Aprock (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what has been said about this heading over the past three weeks. As you know, much has been said, and it's difficult to keep track. If people have no big problem with "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" then let's do it. And then I hope maybe we can focus on whether there's any need for the "original research tag" in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've just spent a couple of hours doing wiki-research. Please don't complain this is "too long." I present below all of the titles of the bridge section from the day it was created until today so that we can look at them.

Aug. 28 - Young Trigg created section Bridge to Nowhere

Aug. 28 Bridge to Nowhere (separate section); Bridge to Nowhere (mentioned in Governorship section)

Aug. 29 Bridge to Nowhere in Governorship section; Bridge to Nowhere (separate again)

Aug. 30 Bridge to Nowhere; Bridge to Nowhere in Budget Section

Sept. 1 Bridge to Nowhere in Budget Section

Sept. 2 "Bridge to Nowhere" in Budget Section; Bridge to Nowhere

Sept. 3 Bridge to Nowhere

Sept. 4 Bridge to Nowhere (locked?)

Sept. 5 Bridge to Nowhere (locked)

Sept. 6 Bridge to Nowhere (locked)

Sept. 7 Bridge to Nowhere (locked)

Sept. 8 Bridge to Nowhere (locked)

Sept. 9 - article unlocked; Knik Arm added to main article after being in sub-article for several days

Sept. 9 Bridge to Nowhere; "Bridge to Nowhere"; Budget, Spending, and the "Bridge to Nowhere"; Bridge to Nowhere; Bridges to Nowhere; "Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way"

Sept. 10 "Bridges to Nowhere"

Sept. 11 Bridges to Nowhere; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

Sept. 12 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

Sept. 13 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

Sept. 14 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

Sept. 15 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; "Bridge to Nowhere"; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

Sept. 16 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

Sept. 17 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" and The Second Bridge, a Bridge to Somewhere; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" and The Second Bridge, $600 Million highway project; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" and The Second Bridge; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; "Bridge to Nowhere"/"Bridges to Nowhere"; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; "Bridge to Nowhere" and The Second Bridge; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere";

Sept. 18 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; Controversial Bridges; Bridges that allegedly go nowhere

Sept. 19 Bridge Controversy; Bridge to Nowhere; "Bridge to Nowhere"; Bridge Controversy; "Bridges to Nowhere"; Bridge to Nowhere; Bridges to Nowhere; Bridge Controversy; "Bridge to Nowhere"; Bridge Controversy; The "Bridge to Nowhere" Controversy; Bridge Controversy; Bridges to Nowhere; Bridge Controversy

Sept. 20 Bridge Controversy (left unchanged while we've discussed title on talk page for two days with, unfortunately, no resolution)

Two names have lasted the longest:

Bridge to Nowhere

PLUSES - this was the section name that was created on Aug. 28 and lasted 7 days unmolested (Sept. 2-9)

MINUSES: only lasted 7 days as stand-alone title, and most of the days it was locked; second bridge was not in section at the time, so no singular/plural conflict

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

PLUSES - basically unmolested, standing unlocked for 6 days (Sept. 11 - 17); includes idea of both singular and plural

MINUSES - many folks hate both quotes and (s)

Arbitrary section break 1

We've had a request for comment and thus far, gotten nowhere. For now, I think we should revert to the last consensus choice which is "Bridge(s) to Nowhere." It has lasted 6 days. If there is a further consensus to change it, let's change it. If folks prefer Bridge to Nowhere, I'm OK with that too. Clearly Bridge Controversy has to go. It has only lasted because of fierce disagreement here that it be included at all. Neither Palin, nor McCain, nor any Alaskan politician, nor anyone in the media refer to it as "Bridge Controversy." There are 100,000s who use either Bridge or Bridges to Nowhere. Ironically, the author who first edited it as "controversy" did so because of the singular/plural problems and NOT because he preferred the word "Controversy" over "Nowhere." Given this history, unless an acceptable compromise is found, I think the only choices are:

Bridge to Nowhere

Bridges to Nowhere

Bridge(s) to Nowhere

all with or without quotations. I'm OK with all six possibilities.GreekParadise (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted this and got an edit conflict and then read what Ferrylodge and Aprock wrote. Since Ferrylodge really doesn't like (s), let's just call it Bridges to Nowhere. That is an accurate name as used by 50,000 sources including the New York Times. It's a compromise between the two longest-lasting titles. And it's explained in the article that the name Bridge to Nowhere usually means Gravina, while Bridges refers to Gravina and Knik Arm. How about it?GreekParadise (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, because Ferrylodge hates the (s), we can change this sentence:

The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[105] or, more rarely, both bridges.[108]

to this sentence:

The nickname "Bridge to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge[105], while the less common nickname "Bridges to Nowhere" usually refers to both Gravina and Knik Arm.[108]GreekParadise (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" for the section heading. "Bridge to Nowhere" gets more than a half million hits.[5] In contrast, "Bridges to Nowhere" only gets only a fifth as many hits.[6]

Also, as I said above, using quotes in the heading would make it clear that it's not our term and judgment, but rather the term and judgment of others. The term is pejorative, and it would be better and more encyclopedic for us not to endorse the term, especially if it's going to cover a bridge that is still going to be built (i.e. Knik Arm).

Furthermore, "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" has some ambiguity in it, since it may refer to multiple proposals for a single bridge, or for more than one bridge. Ambiguity is sometimes a good thing, such as here where one of the bridges in question is not commonly called a bridge to nowhere. "These days, when someone talks about the Bridge to Nowhere, they mean the Gravina Island bridge", according to Factcheck.org.[7] Also, putting "proposals" in the heading suggests to readers right up front that the bridges haven't been built, i.e. they're just proposals.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the quotations marks are fine with me. But I think "proposals" is vague. Are there other bridges besides these two? Why would someone "propose" a "Bridge to Nowhere" anyway? Knik Arm has been called a Bridge to Nowhere 50,000 times, although admittedly far less often than Gravina. Besides, WE're not calling Knik Arm nowhere, the blasted NYT is!  :-) See the source, right there in the headlines. So I don't think we can be criticized for saying "Bridges to Nowhere". No choice is perfect, but I think "Bridges to Nowhere" is likely to last the longest.GreekParadise (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone build a bridge to nowhere?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. They wouldn't, which is why the quotations are good.

Another thought, the word "proposals" is brand-new. Never been used in 23 days. I'm not saying you can't build consensus for it. But I do think we have to revert to a consensus version until you build consensus for it. I think, if you agree, I can revert back to a prior stable version. But I think a lot of people would be upset if we put up a new never-before-used version without a lot more consensus. Make sense? Of the prior used versions, is "Bridges to Nowhere" the least of evils for you?GreekParadise (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Greek Paradise, may I ask whether you have ever accepted any compromise language other than a version consisting of those three words? It seems like you have been rather persistently insistent on those three words, no more and no less. Other editors have objected to them. So why not try something new that tries to address some of their concerns? No one yet has objected to saying "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals", have they?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just think we should go back to an old name unless there's a consensus to change. As you know, I supported your "Bridge to Nowhere" Controversies compromise but no one else seemed to bite at it, except you and me. The one you suggest is similar. I don't think the two of us, even if we agree, can fairly put something new in. But I do think I could "be bold" and revert back to one of the older-used names, and I hope/think folks may leave it alone or work to develop a further consensus. As you can see from my research the three-word titles have lasted through 23 days and at least 5000 revisions (literally) and were not controversial until yesterday. So any of the six solutions I propose is, I think, fairly stable. But if a consensus later develops for "Bridge to Nowhere" proposals, fine. GreekParadise (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall suggesting "'Bridge to Nowhere' Controversies". When was that? And I would urge you not to "be bold" during an ongoing discussion where there is a difference of opinion. See WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=239664667GreekParadise (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you two are the final players in this chess match. I would bet that other editors will abide by your mutual decision...at least for awhile.--Buster7 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that was Jossi's title, not mine.[8] It used singular instead of plural, and it included the word "The".Ferrylodge (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. OK. I though it was yours. When I saw it, I said

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

The "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" Controversy

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

I've been willing to compromise but no one has gone for it. That's why, I think we have to return to the last consensus version, which is one supported by a large number of editors in the request for comment. Even Collect admitted he had no problem with it but he said he just became upset because of the edit war. It stood for 23 days. Let's return it and see if folks really care. And you can choose which of the six three-word versions you like.GreekParadise (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You once said: "(undent) I have no problem with "Bridge to Nowhere" as the title. I also have no problem with "Bridge controversy" as the title. I would be happy to support the former if people would ease up on trying to greatly change the text in the section.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)" Have you changed your mind?GreekParadise (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't changed my mind. People have not eased up on trying to slant this section of the article, and I haven't seen you lift a finger to stop it. For example, just a few moments ago, the caption on the image was slanted, from NPOV to POV.[9] I was willing to compromise and go with "Bridge to Nowhere" if people would stop trying to slant the text. Why should I keep my part of the bargain if others will not keep theirs? I do not think that "Bridge to nowhere" is a good title, because it lacks quote marks to distance us from the name. I do not think that "'Bridge to Nowhere'" is a very good title, because it is singular and the quote marks are liable to be removed. The way to avoid removal of the quote amrks is to have something in the heading that is quoted alongside something that is not quoted. I do not underatand why you refuse to accept "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" but I'm happy to waste my evening and yours waiting for some sign of flexibility from you.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I have AGREED to your quotations. I will happily agree to support you in always keeping them there. Remember that the singular/plural "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" was accepted for a week throughout 1000s of changes. I promise you that I will actively support you in keeping those quotations on (and I have never touched the caption). If you don't like the (s), we'll throw out the s. I've offered you six different possibilities. I don't think I'm the inflexible one here. A three-word title stood for 23 days. I've worked 2 hours to do a lot of wiki-research just for you, to show you that it was the prior consensus. And you have formerly agreed the title is OK, but you only want it as a bargaining chip. I don't think that's fair. I could delete something that you really like and say I won't let you return it, even though I don't mind it, unless you agree to something I like. But that wouldn't be proper, would it? OK you like the quotations. We agree. You don't like the singular. Fine. You don't like the (s). OK. I'm flexible. Let's do "Bridges to Nowhere" (quotations included of course) and then see if anyone else disagrees.GreekParadise (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I have already explained to you that the phrase "Bridges to Nowhere" is much much less familiar than the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere". I provided you links to the Google hits. Here they are again. "Bridge to Nowhere" gets more than a half million hits.[10] In contrast, "Bridges to Nowhere" only gets only a fifth as many hits.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So fine. Let's go singular. "Bridge to Nowhere" Knik Arm will be in the article but not in the title. Fine by me. If you like it, I like it.GreekParadise (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want a "fancy, balanced" title that mentions both bridges, we can say: "Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way". Don Young's Way is the official name of the Knik Arm Bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I've already explained that this section is currently as much about the Knik Arm Bridge as it is about the Gravina Island Bridge. The title can easily reflect that, by using the plural instead of the singular. The plural "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" accomplishes that easily and concisely.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you OK with:

"Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way"

"Bridge to Nowhere" and "Knik Arm Bridge"

"Bridge to Nowhere" (Gravina Island) and "Don Young's Way" (Knik Arm)

All these titles show there are two bridges.

Tell you what. I will completely back down. I will agree with " 'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" even though I think it's a clunky title and a never-used phrase. If you will revert it right now, I won't change it and I'll go to bed. I won't say a further word on it, unless there's a formal Request for Comment or some such thing, where I will then state my preference for the simple three words. If other wikipedians can live with it, I can too. But if they can't, I'll join with them because my preference is for any of these seven choices:

Bridge to Nowhere

Bridge(s) to Nowhere

Bridges to Nowhere

"Bridge to Nowhere"

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

"Bridges to Nowhere"

"Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way"

(actually, I really like this last title and find it elegant because underneath it is: See Gravina Island and Knik Arm, so we have the nickname/official name followed by the geographic name)

So OK, will you change it now? I won't say a further word about it unless someone else objects.GreekParadise (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the heading being "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge". The term "Don Young's Way" is not currently used anywhere in the article, so I think that term would be confusing. Shall I go ahead and change the heading to "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge"?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrific! Yes, please make the change.GreekParadise (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Modifications to Bridge Article

Do you also want me to change this sentence?

The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[105] or, more rarely, both bridges.[108]

to this one?

The derisive term "Bridge to Nowhere" usually refers to the Gravina Island Bridge[105], while the less common phrase "Bridges to Nowhere" normally refers to both Gravina and Knik Arm.[108]

"Derisive" makes clear that opponents -- not wikipedians -- are using the insulting "nowhere" term. New sentence also clarifies singular and plural use of term.GreekParadise (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just stick with "nickname" instead of saying "derisive". First of all, people can pretty well figure out for themselves that "Bridge to Nowhere" is not exactly a compliment. Secondly, not everyone who uses the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" is necessarily deriding the bridge. For example, many news articles use the phrase without quotes, but merely for purposes of identification rather than derision. So: "The nickname 'Bridge to Nowhere' usually refers to the Gravina Island Bridge[105], while the less common phrase 'Bridges to Nowhere' may refer to both Gravina and Knik Arm." No need to say "normally", IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I agree.GreekParadise (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about putting back in "Don Young's Way". Not in our agreed-upon title, of course, but here in the article the way it used to be.

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

...its airport lies;[95] and Knik Arm (officially named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman)

Those would be the only two mentions in the article and only adds a few words.GreekParadise (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is long and wordy already. What's the reason for introducing a synonym? Things are more clear when we just use one name for the bridge. People who follow the wikilink can find out the synonym. Is the point simply to show how vain congresscritters are? We already know that!Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I had heard of "Don Young's Way" years ago as some wasteful earmarked bridge. I had not heard of "Knik Arm" until I started editing this section. I suspect others are in the same boat as I. It does seem awfully vain and may be one reason why the bridge was considered controversial or a waste of money. Young didn't help his constituents by naming the bridge after himself. But that's neither here nor there. His name on it is, I think, also a symbol of a "typical earmark," like how Robert Byrd names everything in WV, which is probably why I remembered it. Indeed, I thought "Don Young's Way" was THE Bridge to Nowhere to the sparsely populated island with the airport (that I later learned was called Gravina) until I studied about 50 sources in preparation for editing this section. So clarifying Don Young's Way as Knik Arm, helps those like me (or me several weeks ago) who had heard of Don Young's Way and the Bridge to Nowhere but didn't know if they were one bridge or two.GreekParadise (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As for length, I'm busy working on combining other stuff non-controversially. The LA Times article just mentions the same access road mentioned a sentence or two earlier.GreekParadise (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in the text (...its airport lies;[95] and Knik Arm (officially named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman)) should be more than enough.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm also putting back in that wonderful "spinmeister" quote by Palin that someone took out. That's a word that should be back, as it's her word describing opponents of the bridge, but I'll make sure it doesnt lengthen it any.

I'll also correct "Because the budget for the bridge was greater than the congressional earmarks, Palin did not want to cover the difference," This is just false and it's not in her statement. The earmarks DID provide enough for both bridges but she decided to spend them on other things.GreekParadise (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why did her statement say, "we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project"? Also, you would be well-advised to revert only if you think it's really necessary. What makes you think that someone won't come back and paraphrase the spinmeister quote? You've got to be more flexible if this article is ever going to become stable.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Because she didn't want to spend the money on the bridge, which is fine, but Congress never reduced the earmark. As for the second point, I can't see any wiki-logical reason for taking out one word that is a direct quote from Palin. What, other than POV, would cause someone to delete her choice word describing bridge opponents? That would be like someone removing Nixon's "I am not a crook" and replacing it with Nixon denied he was crooked. If you can say it in one word, why NOT have a direct quote unless someone is delierately trying to hide the fact that she used that memorable word? I don't remember any NPOV arguments for removing it and the revision is longer than the original. But I'm not reverting back. I'm rephrasing.GreekParadise (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I also cut the LA Times article, while leaving the reference and took its quote about the "nonexistent bridge" and folded it into the earlier mention of the access road.GreekParadise (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We need a source that definitively says that Congress had already given ALL the money needed for the bridges BEFORE Palin became Governor. Do we have such a source? The present Wikipedia article quotes her as saying that Alaska needed to build the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." Why would she need the congressional delegation if Congress had already fully funded it? Why would she say in September 2007 that "we are about $329 million short of full funding" if Congress had already provided full funding? And please don't say stuff like "Congress never reduced the earmark" when we know that Congress decided not to use an earmark for this at all (i.e. Congress opted for "no strings attached").

It was never "all" the money. Congress gave $442 million, half for Gravina and half for Knik Arm. Then removed the "earmark" and gave the same $442 million and said spend it how you want. Now Palin COULD have used the entire $442 million on the Gravina Island bridge with a little left to spare, but decided not to (and I don't blame her).

I feel like we're going in circles again. Please tell me: how much would it have cost to build each of the two bridges? How do you know whether that total cost exceeded $442 million, or not? You wrote above that Congress "DID provide enough for both bridges" but how do you know that? Please cite a source, so we can put it into the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "spinmeister", I'm just saying that you ought to pick your battles. If some doofus wants to paraphrase, then big deal. It's not as though the article will become false and misleading as a result. My advice: try to focus on preventing the article from becoming false or misleading. The rest is not worth your time. But if you do want to put back "spiinmeister" then you ought to devote the time to doing it right, and that means figuring out who paraphrased, and bringing it up at their talk page, I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Except all the sources are messed up now. The source [108] says she said "spinmeisters" are turning the project "into something that's so negative" It does not mention "nowhere" insulting local residents. That was a different source. Whoever changed it mangled up the sources. She never said "nowhere was spin." She said nowhere was insulting and spinmeisters were negative. Whoever changed it didn't read the sources and misunderstood what she said. Now maybe these are distinctions without a major difference but the original was accurate and the current version misstakes what she said. (That's why I wish people would check the original sources before paraphrasing quotes.)GreekParadise (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You ought to look at the edit summary of the culrit who did it, and try to work out an arrangenment so that it woun't just get changed back again. Your goal should be not to get things the way you want them, but rather to get them the way you want them so they're not likely to change right back again.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I had already fixed it with proper sources. But I won't put it in. I'll leave the inaccurate version in for now. Here's the fix, though, if someone else wants to do it right. I'm too tired now to find out who took out the quote originally. And after tonight, I may not be able to work on this for awhile, so I'll leave the accurate versions below so that someone else, if they choose can contact the person who took it out and use the accurate sources:

In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, criticizing "spinmeisters" who would turn the bridge project "into something that's so negative," by using the word "nowhere" to insult local residents. She urged speedy work on Alaskan infrastructure "now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

and fyi, here's the (also accurately sourced) original sentence.

In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere" and urging speedy work on Alaska's infrastructure projects "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

GreekParadise (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Well, I see you've overhauled this section again.[12] Before your edit, the article said:

The state is spending a portion of the federal funding, $25 million, to complete a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, which officials say will open up new territory for development, and therefore that portion of the federal money will not have to be returned.

After your edit, the article says:

The state is spending a portion of the federal funding, $25 million, to complete a Gravina Island access road to the nonexistent bridge, expressly so that no federal money will have to be returned.

You have repeatedly made this edit, and it is highly misleading. If the road had not been built, only that $25 million would have had to be returned, whereas you make it sound like all the hundreds of millions would have to be returned. And you say that that was the express reason for building the road, when you know very well that officials said the road would open up land for development. I find your edits stubborn (because you've done the exact same edits repeatedly before), misleading, and grossly inapprorpiate seeing as how you said nothing at this talk page to justify them. You're just making us all go in endless circles.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No one's complained about that before. I'd be happy to change "no federal money" to "none of that portion" Read the article. That's NOT what state officials said. That's what her spokeswoman said (that the road was needed on Gravina Island for development.) Here's the full quote:

Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government.

[Palin spokeswoman] Leighow said the road project was already under way last year when Palin stopped the bridge, and she noted that it would provide benefits of opening up new territory for development -- one of the original arguments made for the bridge spending.

Perhaps what you or others see as stubbornness is the fact that I've read the sources, all of them for this section in full, so I know when someone's adequately quoting them or not. I'll change "no federal money" to "none of that portion." GreekParadise (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the "nonexistent bridge" part comes from the LA Times article which is still cited but the second sentence on the same subject was removed.GreekParadise (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Last thing, and I know this one is controversial. I briefly presented BOTH SIDES of the Knik Arm Bridge controversy, that the bridge is just across Knik Arm to Anchorage and 40 miles from Wasilla but that Palin has been criticized for providing that link to her hometown and for the beluga whale threat. I mentioned she supports it with reservations and included money spent and her review of costs. If someone wants to revert that's their choice, but I've tried very hard to be fair, and I ask that if anyone revert all the anti-Palin information, they remove the pro-Palin information as well.GreekParadise (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone would like to re-insert the accurate "spinmeister" quote, I would be much obliged. I haven't done it myself, at Ferrylodge's suggestion, so has not to cause hard feelings. My hope is that whoever removed it will check the sources and realize the sentence is now inaccurate and either fix it themselves or, more easily, stick in one of the two accurate versions I have placed above.

And with that, I'll leave wikipedia for several days. Please be fair, give both sides of any controversy, and please, above all, respect the sources. Tighten if you wish, but please do not remove accurate and sourced information without a good wiki-reason. If you have a dispute, I think direct quotations from the sources are the fairest way to resolve it. And I would ask that no one edit a sentence in this section without reading the sources to see if the changes you make are accurate and still cited to the right source. Thanks!

(And I've already noticed a few tightening/typo correcting changes that Ferrylodge has made to the section. Thus far, I like and agree with all of his changes. But, and this will take some effort, I'm not coming back to wikipedia after I type this for several days.)GreekParadise (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a horrible addiction. :) Fcreid (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

Amazingly enough, I fwas travelling the past day and did not see any consensus for "Bridge to nowhere" -- especially not i.8n the archived RfC. I think if one bridge is given its correct name in the section title, so ought the other bridge. One does not use a nickname and a proper name in one title. If one proper name is used, so should the other. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise and Ferrylodge whittled on it all night...and finally came to an agreement. By now, for all of us, these bridges really do lead to nowhere--Buster7 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stand with Buster7, Ferrylodge, and GreekParadise here. The history of the title has been laid out here by GreekParadise, and Ferrylodge has been the primary editor in terms of voicing concerns and activly working on the title. They have come to agreement, and I support it. Aprock (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the title was changed without consensus it'll propably be have to be reverted since it was a subject of an ongoing Rfc. Hobartimus (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which version are you going to revert it to? The edit that started this discussion is here: [13]Aprock (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the mere existence of a whole section and section title raises questions about WP:UNDUE in itself. I looked over the Barack Obama article and didn't find any section dedicated to a "controversy" or anything similar. Hobartimus (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote section

I've done a rewrite of the whole section, mostly for style and tone. I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here, and frankly, approached this from a fresh perspective that it was simply poorly written due to all the back and forth changes. I tried to make it say the same thing as before, albeit with fewer summary or argumentative statements - just lay the facts out. And a number of copyediting changes. Plus, a lot of material had been stuffed into footnotes that didn't belong. The footnotes seem to have been supplementing things in the article rather than being used for verifiability purposes. That was just making the references section messy. If people want to read more they can follow our wikilinks or the citation links to the source articles. Some of the extended discussion on particulars is getting way too nitpicky. The facts of the matter are fairly simple, and it should not be too hard to describe them. People can make of them what they will, but this is supposed to be an article about her, not about the bridges. Because this was mainly stylistic I have no real position on any particular item - I'm not making claims about POV, weight, etc., so I'm sure there are some further changes and improvements. Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Picture (again......sigh)

I've seen that there is some bickering as to what image should be used as the main image. How about this photo I took or something similar. I have several like this. Illinois2011 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice photo. However, no one has objected (yet) to the present photo at the top of the article. The present photo at the top of the article is the third since the Republican National Convention (RNC). The first and second are still in the article, but lower down. The first was objected to because she was looking off to the right. The second was objected to because it was blurry. The third has neither of these problems.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well...the post of the easel covers ther "L" in palin...leaving PAIN....not a good image!--Buster7 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I would like to incorporate this photo into the article somewhere, but I can's seem to find the best place.Illinois2011 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good point Buster7. I was once in San Bernadino National Forest, at a creek where there was a sign for "Deep Creek". But the sign post covered the "C"! :-)

Illinois2011, there is no consensus to include your photo. Thanks anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I just put it up here on the talk page to see if anyone found a use for it. Illinois2011 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you crop it so that PAIN and the telepromter are not in the picture. Otherwise, I don't like it! Sorry!--Buster7 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look through some of the other pictures I have from the event. Illinois2011 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, was there a consensus before you included your photo? Illinois2011 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: there is now.  :-) See WP:Bold.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then why did you just tell me thanks anyway like I was just supposed to move on and forget about it? I have several pictures of John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden that I took myself and that I would be happy to share with Wikipedia. I just don't like changing main images without sharing them with other editors first, which is what I was trying to do. But back to my earlier point, is there anywhere in the article or other articles where this photo might be useful? Illinois2011 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the problem with the photo is that it says "McCain Pain". It was suggested above that you crop it so that PAIN and the telepromter are not in the picture, and I agree with that suggestion. If you do that, then I'm sure everyone here would be glad to take another look. But right now, this article has plenty of pictures, so there's not a great need for more. It's terrific that you're willing to share the pictures you took, and I'm sure that myself and many of the other editors would be glad to look at them if you upload them. However, you can save yourself some time by looking at the various articles and asking yourself whether they really need additional photos at this point, and, if not, whether your photos are better than the ones already there.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we use her official portrait? After all, Obama, McCain, and Biden all have their official portraits on their articles. Tempodivalse (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can persuade her to release the copyright protection on her official portrait, then we could use it. But right now the State of Alaska is enforcing their copyright, unlike the U.S. Senate.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So when the media uses her official portrait, do they get permission from the Alaskan government, or do they claim fair use? Illinois2011 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the media has been using her official portrait very much. But, if they are using it without permission, they may be breaking the law. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's likely they would have gotten the rights or they would have gotten in trouble already - provided anyone cares about it. At wikipedia, copyright paranoia runs deep - into your mind it will creep. Meanwhile, "McCain Pain" would be payback for the "RATS" ad the Republicans had on TV in one of the recent Presidential elections. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you were really creative, you could use Paintshop or something and paste in one of those signs over top of the one in the photo. Manipulating the photo could be a rules issue, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GIMP is your friend. Edited photos are generally acceptable so long as the edits are clearly marked and there is no intent or likelihood of misrepresenting anyone or anything. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your picture is that I really don't know where we would put it: the article already has lots of pictures in it. Perhaps we could insert it into a sub-article or something? Tempodivalse (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Email hack

I just realised it's not mentioned in the article at all, and think it should be. (I think there's some discussion about it above, but damn this page is long.) A google news alert I have running on "4chan" (since I'm keeping an eye on that article) gives 38 emails, each with at least 2 news stories, on this. It was a very big deal and there are almost certainly more ramifications to come. I'd suggest those watching this article introduce a mention of the incident into it. There's stuff at 4chan#Internet attacks if you want some sources and content to work with, I can help with finding more if you like (though I'm not watching this page, so poke my talk page if you want me to help with anything). Just a suggestion. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If we mention the hacking we will also have to mention that it concerned government business conducted on personal sites> why not just leave it be!--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See discussion Talk:Sarah_Palin#Suspect_Nabbed_in_Palin_E-mail_Hack. Switzpaw (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Combined two topic related news stories. See Palin's e-mail secrecy an open secret in Alaska. Thanks, Switzpaw.--Buster7 (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of Precedence?

Not only is it pointless to add...it's wrong. Grsz^talk 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortening her box

Palin's infobox is more than two screens long, which seems unnecessary to me. In it we include both her time on the oil and gas Commission and in Wasilla city council. While certainly true, neither is particularly notable. The city council, by itself, has little bearing on who she is now (certainly not compared to being mayor and governor). The Commission is an appointed (not elected!) position and based on what links to the AOGCC no other person who has ever been on the Commission has a wiki page. In the interest of a more focused infobox, I'd like to suggest removing one or both of these low impact items. They would of course continue to be mentioned in the text of the article. Dragons flight (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is short compared to some others I've seen (e.g. McCain's), and so I'd encourage leaving it as it is. It's not customary to omit elective offices, and I don't think that there's any harm in mentioning her first elective office. One might likewise say that merely serving as a state legislator is not notable for a presidential candidate, but the folks at the Obama article would probably disagree. As for the AOGCC, it seems that it's noteworthy experience for a candidate who is running as someone with lots of knowledge about America's energy situation. I'm not sure that it's any less relevant than a judicial appointment, and surely the latter would qualify for the infobox.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

this is disgusting

im sorry but this is a complete lack of freedom of speech by not allowing others to post factual information about this person that is contrary to what people want you to know about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.224.11 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. We value freedom of speech highly, we value it almost as much as we value WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, see this. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's juicy enough, the National Enquirer will pay for it. You should try there. Fcreid (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually. you don't have any freedom of speech here. But this isn't a forum for you to post all your "factual" info, only info that is appropriate for a relatively brief biographical entry that you might find in an encylopedia.66.190.29.150 (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth". You are free to post whatever you like on the talk page so long as its germane to the article. The article itself is not there for anyone's freedom of speech; it is there for any information that can be verified through sources that doesn't scream NPOV.--Loodog (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are also rules about how a talk page is supposed to be used, see WP:TALK. For instance, an inappropriate use of a talk page would be to post on Talk:Bigfoot something like "BIGFOOT IS REAL, I SEEN IT" and include a link to your video on YouTube. Switzpaw (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Freedom of speech" primarily has to do with the rights of citizens to speak out against the government. Last time I checked, wikipedia is not the government, and there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

THe bridge stuff is out of hand in the article it's massive UNDUE at this point.

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

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

this needs to be cut and will be cut back per BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What did you have in mind in terms of changes? Keep in mind, across the spectrum people at least see "Thanks but no thanks" as a misleading statement, and it is something that's received a lot of coverage.--Loodog (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reader will be able to understand with 1 mention just as well. No need to suppose the readers mentally challanged and repeat the same thing 7 times. Unless of course naked POV pushing is going on. Hobartimus (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus. Lets all move over the bridges and get to the other side. By now there are 25/26 archives and probably 25% of the discussion has been about the bridges. Thank you.--Buster7 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1-4 are mentions within the same section "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge", a section about the bridges, so there's no reason to artificially constrain the number of times the word "bridge" is used there. 5-7 are mention of bridges as they were brought back into the spotlight by her "I told Congress: thanks but no thanks" comment. What would you like to remove?--Loodog (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, I've removed it. We don't need the caption telling the story AGAIN. I shortened the caption to "Gubernatorial candidate Palin showing support for the [name] bridge because that's what the photo is.--Loodog (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You somewhat missed the point, the problem is not that the word "bridge" appears. We have a simple fact. "Palin supported the Gavina Island Bridge in 2006 then in 2007 and 2008 she opposed it". Now the "support in 2006" part appears 7 times all over the article while the more recent and CURRENT position is that she opposes it and in fact cancelled the whole project in 2007. The support happaned years ago in a campaign we all know that politicians sometimes make questionable statements in the campaign. I'm sure President Obama will have trouble with his earlier statements that upon election he will "heal the planet" and "stop the rise of the seas". Or Obama first said "I can't disown Reverend Wright" in his famous "A more perfect union speech" than a few weeks later he flip-flopped and cut all ties with even the whole church or a dozen similar cases could be mentioned. Obama was against offshore drilling before he was for it with limitations. I brought these up to show that all politicans have these, see for example this source [14] on older flip flops by Obama. Where the difference is is that the Obama article (like every BLP that's within the rules) has no section dedicated to "controversy" or massively undue discussion on any of this, and there is no reason the Palin article should have a whole section dedicated to controversies any more than the Obama article should have a huge sections dedicated to Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko ol Bill Ayers or any other major controversy regarding Obama. Hobartimus (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I missed the point again, but the thing that happened years ago was covered in its own section under her governorship, whereas her newfound comments at the RNC about "thanks but no thanks" made it a recent issue, and very notable.

Comparisons with Obama, Biden, McCain, Kerry, W. Bush, Gore, etc... are false analogies — every article in wikipedia is about a distinct set of circumstances. If you have issues with the Obama article, that's the place to take them.--Loodog (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also. repeating yourself isn't productive discussion.--Loodog (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you do to fix the probelm Hobartimus? Aprock (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sections discussing "controversies" must be abolished and their contents reintegrated into the prose and text part of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific here? Aprock (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which sections are you talking about, and how would you integrate those sections into the rest of the article? Aprock (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For example "safety comissoner dismissal " is a section dedicated to controversy/criticism in a sensationalistic manner and there is no reason why such a section should have their own heading per WP:UNDUE. It also encourages editors to enlarge the section with information that's related to the general issue and not the subject of the article. Or for example a certain user extremely active on this article or rather a small subsection of the article only, who admitted recently he only focuses and even reads that section exclusively may be tempted to rehash the whole bridge controversy starting from a time of 2005 battles in congress or general background information about the bridges themselves which has nothing to do with Palin herself. Also a constant desire is seen to expand "his" section. Palin was not in congress in 2005 didn't desing the bridges as an engineer and the section serves as a COATRACK to discuss the bridge itself rather than Palin in a BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing the specifics here, let me say that if these particular things are an issue, then by all means be bold and try and fix them. If a conflict arrises over some specific issue, then it would be best to work on that issue alone. On the other hand, this article is a moving target, so you may find that activly persuing specific wordings and facts may be a Sysiphean task till after the election is over. Aprock (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we take a section that is organized by topic:

   * 5.1 Budget, spending and federal funds
         o 5.1.1 Federal funding
         o 5.1.2 "Bridge to Nowhere" and Knik Arm Bridge
   * 5.2 Gas pipeline
   * 5.3 Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
   * 5.4 Predator Control

And scatter it? Or abolish the section titles?--Loodog (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole section could be a single body of text like "political positions" or "Personal life" under Governor of Alaska 2006-2008. Or the section titles should be more general with avoiding giving flaimbait issues their own section. There is no reason why the bridge or federal funding would need their own sub-sub sections withing Budget spending or any other. Hobartimus (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, are you suggesting that we lie by exclusion of the fact that she supported the bridge? Once again, any comparison with other articles is not valid. She supported the bridge, and we need to say it, instead of whitewashing the truth. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Obama article has no section titled "Jeremiah Wright" (which was 100 times bigger controversy at the time, this just happened recently and you see it bigger in comparsion by WP:RECENTISM) the question of WP:UNDUE becomes all the much clearer. Hobartimus (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment could be taken as a claim that the Obama article "whitewashes the truth" by not dedicating sections to Ayers, Rezko, Wright or any other major controversy. We are not talking about mentioning it (Wright is mentioned at Obama) we are talking about dedicating whole sections to it. Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2 1/2 weeks later does not violate WP:RECENTISM. And let me reiterate what Erik said: "Once again, any comparison with other articles is not valid."--Loodog (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You can reiterate all you want Wikipedia has NPOV, you know what the N stands for, Neutral. If you say the current discrepancy between the Obama and Palin articles is OK you can't even pretend to be neutral. Hobartimus (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. And what does the "m" in your edit summary mean? --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that dedicating section titles to "contorversies" is massively undue and cannot stand. Hobartimus (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not dependent on comparison between articles. That would create an impossible standard. Would we start claiming Nixon's article isn't NPOV by comparing it to FDR, or W. Bush to Clinton? If you think the Obama article isn't NPOV in its own right, bring it up there.--Loodog (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT Hobartimus (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Loodog is right. If there are issues with the Obama page, then you should work on them there. If there is something specific here that you find controversial, by all means suggest specific resolutions. Aprock (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? WP:CRIT never says don't dedicate sections to controversy and countless articles in wikipedia correctly include "controversy" sections since they are notable, which isn't even how the disputed section is titled, even if there were essay recommendations against it in WP:CRIT.--Loodog (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to bring nothing up at the Obama article, after observing the Obama article for a long time I came to the ultimate conclusion that the Obama article is a result of a strong enforcement of the BLP, UNDUE and NPOV policy something we should aspire to do at this article. If I'd change anything at the Obama article it would be to the extent of 2-3 sentences at most. However the Obama article is important only as a standard achieved such as FA standard in exactly the same article type. Reaching FA here will not be possible without at least loosly following the practices seen at the Obama article such as avoiding massive UNDUE and others. Hobartimus (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It is your contention that having a section dedicated to the bridge controversy violates WP:NPOV, yes? The title itself is neutral, and it's a notable aspect of her governorship like the gas pipeline, troopergate, etc... If you were to summarize the notable aspects of her governorship, the headlines should read like a synopsis, which they do. If you want to remove the sections, we're just clumping together what's already organized for the sake of burying notable features of an administration.--Loodog (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Violates WP:UNDUE and undisputedly so. The bridge controversy became a controversy in the campaign it's only notable since the campaign the "controversy part" belongs to the campaign section. All of the sources to it and all it's notability is dated since the few days of the campaign. Your error is to think it's a "feature of the administrations" but it's a "feature of the campaign". Hobartimus (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I submit: the bridge controversy was notable before even the 2008 presidential election. "Bridge to Nowhere" was a famous phrase. I remember Obama actually using it to talk about occluded government spending, far before there were any indications it could become a campaign issue. "Thanks but no thanks" is what's notable and related to the campaign now.--Loodog (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly this is the problem here editors will be tempted to bring generalized statements, for example the thing you qouted says "a bridge to nowhere", not the bridge to nowhere. Before the campaign Gavina Island Bridge was a defunct project cancelled in 2007 by Palin, I submit that nobody was talking about it anywhere "remember that bridge that was cancelled in 2007 that was a wild project I tell ya" until recently and nobody was talking about it relating to Palin it wasn't even a blip in Palin's bio before the campaign. Supported it 2006 as not governor cancelled it 2007 as governor and yet we have most content from 2008 a long time after either of those actions took place. Why would anyone harp on a 2007 cancelled project in 2008 for any other reason that 2008 is a campaign year? In 2009 again noone will talk about it as relating to Palin whatever the result. The "bridge to nowhere" might have been notable before the campaign, but was not a major part of Palin's bio until a few days ago. Please give the number of sources that discuss the Bridge to Nowhere related to palin before August 2008. Hobartimus (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "bridge to nowhere" has been a national issue since late 2005, and Palin has been directly involved with it since 2006. Aprock (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

However the topic of this article is Sarah Palin, and not "the bridge to nowhere". How many sources describing Palin's connection to the "bridge to nowhere" before the campaign?Hobartimus (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'Bridge to nowhere' abandoned dated 2007. Mentions Palin by name, establishing it as a notable part of her governorship, prior to VP frenzy.--Loodog (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, and if you have some specific changes, by all means make them known. Aprock (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of trimming is needed to get this article into some semblance of balance. For instance, the section on Palin's first term as Mayor is five paragraphs, three of which deal with the first four months when Palin, as she has been quoted, "grew enormously" These three paragraphs could easily be boiled down into one, especially since there is an article about Palin as mayor. Similarly, the Bridge to Nowhere section also has it's own article and consumes three paragraphs. It could easily be boiled down to three sentences. There is a "predator control" subsection that is way out of proportion to its importance (WP:BLP cautions especially in using section headings to give undue weight). It, too has it's own article and needs trimming. The same is true of the "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" section another three paragraphs supposedly "summarizing" another article. There is a lot of work needed to get this article into balance.--Paul (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of these sections need to be trimmed for lenght, especially in the case where there are articles devoted to the topic. Aprock (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

shorter article concensus ignored?

I noted the "beluga whale" piece reinserted under BTNKAB. If I recall correctly, there was a strong consensus not to include ediotializing, and not to include discredited arguments (beluga whales). It looks like some people have been busy setting up a need for reassertion of the consensus that the shorter the section, the better. I also correct the claim that Palin "continues" to support the Knik bridge after she asked for a review. Frankly, adding stuff which was already removed by consensus sounds like "consensus shopping." I would also suggest that the only consensus title named by the editors still appears to be "Bridge controversy. as no contradictory consensus has been found by me. Let's shorten this puppy! Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the beluga piece was rejected, I suggest to revert the nonconsensus edits. Hobartimus (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

mayoral "at will" firing

The terms "for nearly any reason etc." translate exactly and precisely into "at will." The result is more accurate and shorter. Which I think is a plus. Collect (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back to how it originally was. "At will" is not a commonly understood term, especially for readers whose first language is not English and linking to At-will employment doesn't seem to properly account for the ruling... This is particularly true since the lawsuit was in regards to him being fired for political reasons. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor eliminated the "including a political one" language, and I'm about to restore itanother restored it. Law is full of situations where one needs to say the specific in addition to the general to make clear that the case at hand is not an implicit exception. In law, "for any reason or no reason" does not necessarily mean that political firings are legal. Reading it, I would not have assumed it without that statement. Implicitly there are always invalid reasons - for example, terminations for extortion, fraud, personal gain, retribution against whistleblowers or people asserting employment claims in good faith, harassment, race/gender/age/religious discrimination, and a host of others are specifically illegal. In private employment, "at will" termination (for any reason or no reason) does not include the right to fire someone for political reasons. So I do think it's helpful to say that the judge ruled specifically that a politically-motivated firing is considered legitimate. That does not imply that the firing was in fact political, but rather that the complaint was dismissed because even if the facts were true it does not make a legal case. So the facts of the case are not worth trying. I hope that's clear.Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentnece in the article presently says: "Stambaugh filed a lawsuit, but the case was dismissed; the court concluded the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I changed my earlier statement. I don't think the "or for no reason at all" is strictly necessary but it's a bit of a legal convention and it doesn't hurt anything either.Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is especially true when the reason why the former Chief was suing the city for wrongful termination.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian metaphor?

Are there any buildings in Alaska from which windows you can actually see mainland Russia? --Hapsala (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Buildings? You mean like a watch-tower? :) Hobartimus (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The metaphor has been included in recent Palin speeches and in the Charles Gibson interview. Watch-towers included. --Hapsala (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

But was the word building used? That's just an odd thing to say. Hobartimus (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, only windows... in secondary sources... And, indeed, going back to the Gibson interview, Palin only says that "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska". Gibson interview (5.18). No windows or buildings mentioned. Palin was right again... --Hapsala (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Our very own Wikipedia says the following

During the Cold War, the Bering Strait marked the border between the United States and the Soviet Union. The island of Big Diomede in the USSR was (and is) only 4 km (2.4 mi) from the island of Little Diomede in the USA. Traditionally, the indigenous peoples in the area had frequently crossed the border back and forth for "routine visits, seasonal festivals and subsistence trade", but were prevented from doing so during the Cold War. The border became known as the "Ice Curtain". In 1987, American swimmer Lynne Cox symbolically helped ease tensions between the two countries by swimming across the border, and was congratulated jointly by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.

The distance between Russian land and USA land up there is apparently 2.4 miles. Hobartimus (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't you asking in the Alaska article? Switzpaw (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, what metaphor? She said you could see Russia from Alaska, and that's an undisputed fact. Not all of Russia from all of Alaska, obviously — nobody thinks she meant that you can see Königsberg from Juneau — and one can argue about the significance of this fact in the context of her preparedness for the job of vice president, but a fact it remains, and no metaphor. So I honestly don't understand the question, and why buildings have anything to do with it. -- Zsero (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

One can see Russia from Alaska, but some people think she said that you can see Russia from her house, which obviously isn't true. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was an SNL skit. Switzpaw (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes these people who think about "the house" part confuse her with Tina Fey. 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Report?

Did Sarah Palin really author the report examining the riots in Jerusalem between 4th and 7th April 1920? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.211.52 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

I disagree with this edit by Duuude007. He crossed out material in an image caption:

In September 2006, gubernatorial candidate Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Bridge was essential for the town's prosperity. A year later, she cancelled it.

His edit summary said: "removed redundant extra blurb from caption." However, those six deleted words are necessary for NPOV, and they were inserted yesterday by GreekParadise for a very good reason.[15] His edit summary said: "fixed caption to incorporate both Duuude007's and Ferrylodge's suggested captions in one short sentence." The idea that those six words are redundant is incorrect; the present caption gives no clue that Palin eventually killed the bridge.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted four words at the end of the caption: "She later cancelled it."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you see, the edit right before that was a revert (by me), because someone had edited it down to even more basic caption, because yesterday someone had added that blurb. Their reason was because it was "telling the whole story", when the paragraph 1 inch over does that too. I am OK with it being added back, if an editing war doesn't ensue. I still stand by the importance of her Ketchikan's essential for prosperity statement being included in the caption, regardless of the outcome. Duuude007 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the image page says the source is Daily Kos and some guy's blog. But I see that OTRS is pending. Did the Mayor of Ketchikan really write to OTRS?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, he did. I've personally spoken with Bob Weinstein several times on the matter. He even forwarded me the original uncropped version, thinking that I had never seen it before. That uncropped version of the image is also included in the creative commons license. They are just slow to finish the encoding for some reason. Duuude007 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit to emailing Palin's office in Alaska for permission to use her official photo, but they never answered, which in retrospect is probably just as well. It's probably best to keep the professional politicians out of this editing process as much as possible. For the most part, they seem to have left it up to us amateurs, AFAIK. Which is great, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not "In September 2006, gubernatorial candidate Palin showing support for the Gravina Bridge in Ketchikan."? A caption should just describe the picture, not tell the associated story.--Loodog (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Loodog, See Wikipedia:Caption#Providing_context_for_the_picture: "A picture captures only one moment in time. What happened before and after? What happened outside the frame? For The Last Supper, 'Jesus dines with his disciples' tells something, but add 'on the eve of his crucifixion' and it tells much more about the significance…. The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say 'William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government.' Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is." I agree that our caption could be made a bit more concise, perhaps by removing "gubernatorial candidate", but I'm fine with the rest.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Jesus example tells about events about to occur that makes the present moment notable. Sarah isn't about to wake up the next morning from that photo shoot and change her "bridge" policy then. The purpose of the picture isn't to show contradiction (we'd need her wearing sweatpants with "stop the bridge" written across the ass for the picture to be able to show it); the purpose of the picture is to show her demonstrating support for the project as part of her campaign platform. The full story is told just to the left, we needn't summarize the section in a caption of a picture of her holding a t-shirt.--Loodog (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin also isn't a religious figure claiming to be the Messiah, but that distinction is not relevant either. The fact that she dramatically shifted course will make readers want to read the section to find out why. And if they only read in the caption that she supported the bridge, many people will move along to the next section of the article falsely believing that Palin never cancelled anything. The unbalanced caption violates NPOV because it gives cursory readers the false impression that she has only supported the bridge to nowhere. Both sides need to be represented, and it only takes FOUR WORDS ("but later cancelled it").Ferrylodge (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the part about cancelling, then reverted after Ferrylodge reminded me of this discussion. I think it's a little awkward to say something that happens after the picture was taken, and sounds like we're being argumentative to prove a point. I think actually makes her look bad (flip-floppy or inconsistent) to say she canceled it without the full explanation, which is there in the accompanying text. Sometimes trying not to be POV comes off sounding more POV than just letting things be, because it sounds like things are inserted just to prove a point. Anyway, this could be softened a little bit by combining the sentence with a comma or a bit of explanation, something like "bridge, which she canceled the next year citing Congressional opposition." Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Softening would be fine with me, though I prefer to keep it short ("but later cancelled it" is only four words and thus much less likely to be deleted in the future than your longer softened version). The way I see it, the fact that she dramatically shifted course will make readers want to read the section to find out why. And if they only read in the caption that she supported the bridge, they may well skip along to the next section of the article falsely believing that Palin never cancelled anything.

Ferrylodge (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Wikidemon. It just sounds POV-y, like we're going out of our way to pick on her and maybe it seems that way because of how much simpler the photo is than the caption. Maybe there is a way to say all that without coming off as snarky, but I can't think of it. Something like, "Palin supporting the bridge before she canceled it out of budgetary concerns"?--Loodog (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• But again, that is omitting the immediate context of the image: what she was doing on that day, holding up that t-shirt for. Thats why I was more in favor of the original Ketchikan statement, let the paragraph explain the rest. Duuude007 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Date and First Child Birth Date

I looked up, verified and sourced her full marriage date and the birth date of her first child to help me (and others) to verify or disprove stories about these two dates. I wanted to know the facts, and facts can be hard to come by -- it helps people to evaluate her explanation of why they were quickly married. But of course I added no comments, only filled in the missing month and day.

Two editors (Truthanado, Threeafterthree) removed the information. Truthanado because I had not added month and day for her other children (I have no source data on that), and Threeafterthree because he called my reason for the research "nonsense". These are basic facts, and should be in a factual article about Sarah Palin. Let others draw conclusions, but do not suppress the accurate and relevant detail that will prevent a reader from evaluating the data and drawing their own conclusions. "4/20/1988" only adds 4 extra bytes, but is much more complete. Jimmetzler (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Sarah Palin, not her son. And I'm pretty sure your usage of Accurint for this purpose violates your pubic data license. Posting the info here violates the confidentiality agreement that coincides with that license. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimmetzler, I assume the point you are trying to make is that Track was born 8 months after they were married, implication being that Sarah Palin was probably pregnant when they eloped? Next, you'll be telling us she uses Botox. Seriously, if you want to add something like that to the article, it should be explicit. You can't just sneak it in through the back door. And it needs to be justified - we only put in important facts, not just any trivia. It's not enough that it's true, the fact has to be relevant somehow. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The birthdate data can be found on multiple websites and has been referred to in broadcast news (Hannity and Colmes, NBC), so I am not posting anything new here. However, Accurint was the most authoritative and verifiable source I could find. News stories have already reported that Track was born less than eight months after she eloped without telling her family. The data does imply that she was either pregnant or that Track was premature. I'm not sneaking anything in, just making the two dates (marriage and birth) more exact. The earlier data was not complete. With the full facts, readers can be make their own judgments, research further or just ignore the whole thing (probably the later).

I'm sorry, but why is it correct to specifically exclude the birth date of her first child when that data is available, sourced and was already in the article but in a less exact form? What is the motivation here?Jimmetzler (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the right question, what is your motivation? Hobartimus (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself an end-user of the information. I heard a news article that reported the reason she gave for her elopement, then it mentioned her baby was born less than eight months later. I developed an opinion on whether her story was complete and accurate based on the news story and my own family history, but I wanted to check out the facts/dates first. Wiki did not have enough details for me to evaluate the whole story, so when I gathered the data I also updated Wiki with the complete facts so others don't have to work so hard to find the same information. Isn't that what Wiki is all about? I am not reporting her story, my opinion or my conclusion -- as all are irrelevant.Jimmetzler (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I heard that in 1993, the Palin's dog was caught rooting around in the neighbor's trash, a promotion of criminal behavior and cause of damage to the environment. Also, their cat may once have been seen scratching a rare Alaskan pine tree in 1989, reflecting its owner's hatred for the environment. These things need to go into the lead immediately. Kelly ^hi! 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. See WP:SARCASM - is really helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish it was sarcasm - people have tried to make a "scandal" of facts that she once asked ministry students to pray for our troops, or that she once bought a used tanning bed with her own money. Oh, and I normally try to stay away from essays like the one you referenced, as they're typically narcissistic wanking by self-proclaimed Wikipedia insiders. An exception would be WP:GRIEF, which is a must-read for people involved with spammy articles regarding non-notable organizations they're involved with. Kelly ^hi! 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Were you also going to include the birthdates of all her other children, or for some reason were those not so relevant? If you were actually honest about your intention to imply her son was conceived prior to marriage, were you also going to include that it would have been unlikely for her to have determined she was pregnant only four to six weeks after conception? Probably not. Finally, did your research yield any statistical data on the percentage of American firstborn children that are born prematurely (approximately one-third?) Probably not. Jeez, at least be above board on your intentions. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a policy against including exact birth dates and other semipersonal info about non-notable persons. Anyway there is no reason why you should need to now of the exact birthdate of a living person who are not notable enough to have their own articles. Hobartimus (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's reason for unfiring Emmons

And here's the discussion part of WP:BRD. The "firings" source does not support this sentence in the article "Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day,[ref] stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations." The source only says "As to what prompted the change, Palin said she now has Emmons' assurance that she is behind her." Then two paragraphs later "Palin said she asked Emmons if she would support efforts to merge the library and museum operations. Emmons said she would, according to Palin." The article makes no indications that Emmons opposed the merger prior to her getting the letter and does not indicate that the assurance Palin received from Emmons was the agreement to the merger. You can't tie two different paragraphs from the source together that way and claim they are related. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, first of all, I don't particularly care for your accusation of "deception" in your edit summary ("Deceptive editing of quote from article used to support claim").[16] See WP:AGF and WP:Civil.

The article now says: "Following a meeting with Emmons and expressions of public support for Emmons, Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day,[37] stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.[citation needed]" You know very well, Bobblehead, what material this sentence of our article was attempting to summarize.[17] If you think we should summarize better, then give it a try. But please stop with the baseless personal attacks about my alleged "deception."

As you note, the cited source says: "Palin said she asked Emmons if she would support efforts to merge the library and museum operations. Emmons said she would, according to Palin." The article also says: "Palin said Friday she now feels Emmons supports her but does not feel the same about Stambaugh." There is no way on Earth that this does not support the sentence in the Wikipedia article. But why not try rephrasing if you don't like it. Are you seriously arguing that Palin's cancellation of the Emmons firing was unrelated to the fact that Emmons said she would support merging the library and museum?

You have also moved a sentence that mentions that both Stambaugh and Emmons supported Palin's mayoral opponent. You have moved this sentence to an inappropriate spot in the article, and I do not understand what legitimate reason you could have for doing so. The present Wikipedia article now says: “Stambaugh filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming his termination was for political reasons as both he and Emmons had publicly supported Palin's defeated mayoral opponent.” This sentence you've written is not supported by the cited source, and falsely implies that a reliable source has reported that Stambaugh told the judge about his support for Stein against Palin. The cited source does not suggest that Stambaugh ever mentioned to the court that he had supported Palin's opponent. Here’s what the cited source says: “Palin told the Daily News back then the letters [firing Emmons and Stambaugh] were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.” Obviously, the cited source is not mentioning political allegiances in connection with Stambaugh's lawsuit, but rather in connection with the initial firings of both Emmons and Stambaugh. Our Wikipedia article should follow the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The controverisal NYT story

The fact that that story was strongly criticized by that paper's own organization, by it's own public ombudsman, is certainly notable and should be mentioned if that story is mentioned. Even if we assume all the negative reactions by Palin and her supporters don't deserve mentioned, this kind of self-criticism is really unusual. The Squicks (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article reads "Bill Keller, the executive editor, Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, and Matt Purdy, the investigations editor who handled the Palin article, defended it." and asserting that he "criticized the article" is a poor summary of the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: The article was researched by three reporters, including Peter Goodman, who worked for the Anchorage Daily News for several years and covered Palin in Wasilla. He said the story was “fair, deeply reported and solid to the point that the McCain-Palin campaign has not challenged a single fact.” But had the article focused on fewer episodes, giving more facts to paint a fuller picture, it might have better served skeptical readers inclined to think The Times is biased. After several e-mail exchanges with the reporters, I think they had the answers to many of my questions, and some of the answers were in early drafts of a long story that was cut to fit in the paper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake! The first paragraph of the thing says:

WHEN a newspaper like The Times takes a tough, critical look at a candidate in this year’s presidential election, it has to give readers enough solid evidence to make up their own minds about whether it is being accurate and fair. Consider two front-page articles last weekend: I think one delivered the goods and one fell short.

How the heck else do you interpret that? The Squicks (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, that extremely controversial NYT article has received a lot of criticism of all kinds of Palin supporters. That in itself is certainly notable. But the fact that even the NYT public ombudsman can see problems in the article makes it exceptionally notable. The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is your wording that is at issue? The article was not criticized because it was incorrect, it was criticized because its claims were not made air-tight by the work of other reporters in other articles or within the article itself. Nowhere does the ombudsman say that the information within the article or the assertions made by the reporters were incorrect, just that there was enough wiggle room within the information they presented that one could remain unconvinced of the assertions. Perhaps if you proposed wording that included why the ombudsman criticized the article it would be acceptable?--Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously not my wording that's an issue. The very mentioning of the article itself is being refused. The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One can beat around the bush about it. But it's completely clear that Hoyt criticized the article. Now, I never said and never implied that Hoyt 'recanted' the article. But Hoyt did say:

I think it presented a series of unflattering anecdotes, some confusing and incomplete, but never made the connection between style and results necessary to judge a politician who was overwhelmingly re-elected mayor and has an 80 percent approval rating as governor.

And he said that it "fell short" of the basic standards that NYT articles should have. Now, how the heck is that not "criticism"? The Squicks (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone with edit privileges please help?

"Palin is scheduled to be shredded" in the VP debate with Biden on 10/2. The word "shredded" has to go, but I don't get to edit here, even though I *think* I'm an "established" (though rarely active) member. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonsohio (talk • contribs) 03:08, September 22, 2008 (UTC)

Done. Don't forget to sign your talkpage posts with four tildes (~~~~). -- Vary | Talk 03:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks Robertsonsohio (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)