Talk:Gravina Island Bridge/Archive 1

POV

The wikipedia document on NPOV gives pretty clear guidelines on what constitutes NPOV. Based on that document's description:

Media coverage of the bridge issue was heavily biassed and lacking in information. 14:16, 27 January 2006 Alyeska

A statement this strong requires equally strong proof of its veracity (e.g., results of a study showing that media coverage consistently favored one point of view). Otherwise, this statement is simply opinion, and as such should be qualified as just that. The 24 January revision does just that; it contains the same factual information as the 27 January version but qualifies claims of bias as opinions of the interested parties (likewise, I am certain that strong opponents of the bridge would claim just the opposite bias in media coverage). If there are particular points of dispute then please raise them in the discussion page so we can have an open forum on those topics. --Jorge1000xl 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Prior to the funding of the bridge being removed, every single AP story released in newspapers that I had come across on the story had the facts horribly wrong. Consistently the stories kept talking about a bridge that would serve only 50 people. Not one single media reporting happened to mention that the bridge would service the towns only airport. This is intentionaly or extreme ignorance in news reporting. Information was biassed to the point that it created a public outrage at this "waste" which only helped 50 people. The story conviently left out the fact that the bridge would service the entire community of 8,000 as well as tourists. This is by is very definition a flawed media reporting. It was only after the money had been cut from direct federal funding the the media began to air the whole story. Alyeska 06:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've found just the opposite [1] [2] [3] [4]. Nearly every hit off of the first page of a Google search for "bridge to nowhere Alaska" mentions 1) the 8000+ citizens of Ketchikan, 2) the airport being located on Gravina Island, and 3) the added access to developable land. What's more, many of these hits are archived news reports dating as far back as 2005 May 17. Based on these findings, I would suggest that there is at least some dispute as to whether the media coverage is biased one way or the other. As such, if you want to include accusations of media bias in this article, then by all means do so; but unless you have stronger proof than uncited anecdotal conjecture, it is not realistic to claim that it is fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge1000xl (talk • contribs) 07:09, January 28, 2006 (UTC)

I agree and the version of this statement starting 'Critics of the media coverage claim bias' is an empty statement without sources based on WP:AWW. Are their prominent Republican congressmen that we could attribute this to? That would probably be the best source to cite.Antonrojo 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But how about fixing the bias in the article? I agree that the media, probably due to lack of any investigative effort on its part, reported almost exclusively that the bridge was going to an island to serve 50 residents. Certainly, the "bridge to nowhere" has been so demagogued that the airport has been lost in the discussion. (I brought this up to a class of about 40 people -- all were aware of the bridge, but not one was aware of the airport connection. Unscientific, I know). But while a lot of real facts have been stated in this article, both sides are not fairly presented. An airport serves the economic development needs of a community, for example, and thus the $250 million may be money well spent. The pro-bridge point of view has got to be somewhere -- maybe in the Ketchikan newspaper where public opinion is probably running more greatly in favor of the project than in the rest of the country.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goeverywhere (talk • contribs) 21:16, September 3, 2006 (UTC)

I have gone back and tried to clean up the NPOV issues in this article. I would defer to others to decide on whether it's appropriate to remove the NPOV tag, however. Beforehand, the article came off as an argumentative essay designed to defend the bridge. While I marginally support the bridge, I believe objectivity is the focus of Wikipedia. Therefore, I've done the following: 1. Removed the section on the Knik Arm Bridge, but linked it to that article. Lots of stuff about the wrong bridge in here, and it was not made relevant to this article. 2. I left in the info on the "You Tube" video, but I deleted the claim of factual errors. Either give a citation or leave it out. Better yet, write it in a neutral context (with citations). 3. I added the length of the ferry ride to the airport. 4. I added a cited pro-bridge statement from the Alaske Department of Transportation. That beats the biased argument it replaced. 5. I corrected the price of the bridge. It's actually $315 million and cited. The $223 million figure was just the federal contribution. As I mentioned in a separate post, the article still needs some survey data -- possibly national survey data and local survey. I've heard it's about 50/50 for-against in Ketchikan, but I don't have the citation and will not include. Goeverywhere 06:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You state that the ferry takes 7 minutes but the YouTube video says it's a minute and 22 seconds. Which is correct? Even allowing some time for loading, 7 minutes sounds like a stretch if the actual crossing time was really as short as the YouTub video claims. I realize it's not a reliable source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpp42 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Having ridden this ferry a number of times, it could not cross Tongass Narrows in one minute 22 seconds with flat water, a tailwind and no other traffic. Transit time averages about six minutes including docking. Then you must drag all baggage up the hill, about 250 yards, to get to the terminal. While it is possble to take vehicles across on the ferry, there is no long term parking on the airport, so your vehicle must go back to Revillagigedo Island,(the Ketchikan side) before you get on a plane. This typically takes about 45 minutes. The national media did not report the airport evacuation in January 2007 due to a bomb threat. This took 2 hours and was fortunately a false alarm. Dartbucks (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating to see that previously included arguments in favor of the bridge have been removed... Wikiality rules the day. Goeverywhere 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the edit history of the article and I can't really find any arguments in favor that are longer there. If you can point me to a specific date where the comments were still in the article I will readd the content. The intended purpose of the bridge is included in the introduction, I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Cacophony 16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Gov. Palin in the opening paragraph is obviously editorial -- her support for improving Alaska's infrastructure, followed by rejection of earmark funding for same, may both be factual -- but the sentence draws a conclusion as to why that is, that is clearly the writer's own opinion, and is not supported by the article referenced (as implied). The later reference is not verifiable, and frankly, is again, editorial in nature. IMO, this does not meet the so-called NPOV standard, and ought to be re-worded accordingly -- or, provide factual basis for the conclusion. 71.63.29.72 (talk) eric schmitz

Ted Stevens Removal

I suspect that mention of Ted Stevens was removed simply because of a hasty revert (evidenced by the fact that the revert re-introduced some anti-bridge bias) and not because of a desire to eliminate mention of the topic. Ted Stevens, the two bridges, and his conduct during his senate speach are all irrevocably intertwined. As such, it deserves a place on this page. --Jorge1000xl 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Note: I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia entries, so please correct me where appropriate, etc. I'm not immediately making changes in part because I'm unsure, and in part due to the broad scope of what I see as needing to be changed. There's a number of things that jump out at me about the current entry, in relation to stated facts. I'm hesitant to make some changes, as I'm not sure what the sources are for the current data. Specifically:

• Population numbers not cited (census? what year?)
• Cost per person for Knik Arm bridge doesn't cite population or total cost, and "per person served" is ambiguous as to how this is being calculated. (Appears to be from the Salon.com article which cites a figure of "$1,500 on every Alaskan", compared to the national average, for total funding allocated from the transportation bill... not specific to either bridge, or even local population)
• Sources seem to indicate the Knik Arm is 13,500 feet, or 2.6 miles... not the 1 mile currently stated.
• The Knik Arm bridge, aka "Don Young's Way", has a cost of up to $1.54 billion according to a feasability study."$1500 per person served" does not seem to be based on this number. Federal funding and total cost should be distinguished.
• "help aid recovery from Hurricane Katrina" is ambiguous at best, and misleading at worse. It doesn't state what the funding would be diverted to (appears to be I-10 reconstruction, per Washington Post article)
• Not clear what the Knik Arm bridge connects.. "residents of Anchorage and the Knik Arm area" seems to suggest Knik Arm is a locality, while external sources seem to indicate that Knik Arm is an inlet, and the bridge is to span the inlet connecting Anchorage and Mat-Su Valley.
• "plans to fully fund both bridges" is ambiguous; one can assume it means that all available federal funding will be allocated, but not whether the construction will be fully funded by the federal funds allocated. If the bridge is $1.54 billion, then the federal funds wont cover the full amount.

There's a few other problems here, e.g. while it's suggested that media coverage is critical, the critique itself is not stated, nor how dissenting views differ. "unfairly from point of view of residents" is very vauge and doesn't seem to be readily supportable; which residents, and "tied" in what way, i.e. that critical opinions cannot be applied unanimously because of differing circumstances? The 2005 Transportation Equity Act stub article seems to better define this, in its current revision, stating "Congresspersons were using the bill not for the improvement of transportation but for garnering more votes in individual districts." While the sentence structure could be improved, it does highlight a critical opinion, and gives the basis for understanding dissenting opinions that are cited. macker 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You bring up very valid points. I have added a "verifiability" notice on the front page. Don't forget to be bold! lensovet 01:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The YouTube Video

I'm new to WikiPedia too.... but wouldn't it be nice to link to the YouTube video? After all, this is the internet not a paper encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.172.168 (talk • contribs) 13:58, August 30, 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article even references it, why not just pop a link in there? 69.40.197.122

I added 2 links, one when the video was mentioned and one in the external links. Herorev 04:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for bridge height

I question the statement " Ketchikan's primary industry is tourism, so the bridge was designed to be tall enough to accommodate the cruise ships which frequent the Alaskan waters during the summer." I am under the impression that any new bridge built over navigable waters may not obstruct existing shipping. It has nothing to do with the importance of tourism to the city's economy.--agr (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to fix it.--agr (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)