Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 51

Johnston's notability and any BLP concerns over an article about him is a different issue entirely, and I think that distracts us from thinking about the redirect. If there were material in this article about him a redirect would make some sense. However, there is none for the moment, nor do I think it is a good fit here, so the redirect does not help the user. If we can take the politics and supposed negativity of being an unwed father out of things, this is a bio of Sarah Palin, not a genealogy of her family. We often say who people's parents, siblings, and children are, even if not notable, but usually don't get so far as to mention grandchildren, grandparents, or cousins, much less the father of a grandchild. The event did get higlighted as part of her public persona during the election, and he campaigned with her, but if anything that makes more sense in an article about her image or part in the campaign if we have such articles. Perhaps it makes sense to have a "family of Sarah Palin" article, given that the family itself was a very prominent matter, but whether that's notable and could be written in an encyclopedic way is also a matter to think about somewhere else. Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Try not linking the two as a phrase. "Jesus ponies" is not a proper name, so linking the two does not make sense. And look in the archives here for usage connecting Palin to the term, also claims she was grandmother of Trig, also claims she was a secessionist, also claims she was pregnant when she got married, also claims she believed there were dnosaurs when man was around etc. For "palin +jesus +ponies" we get " Results 1 - 10 of about 2,610,000 for palin jesus ponies. (0.37 seconds) Search ResultsSarah Palin Says: Dinosaurs Are Jesus Ponies!Sep 15, 2008 ... Dinosaurs Are Jesus Ponies! Sarah Palin is a strict ... Digg - "Dinosaurs are Jesus Ponies" sign at a Sarah Palin Rally"Dinosaurs are Jesus Ponies" sign at a Sarah Palin Rally. ... What are "Jesus Ponies"? - Yahoo! AnswersWhat are "Jesus Ponies"? I have heard that Vice Presidential nominee Sara Palin believes in "Jesus Ponies". What are they? 6 months ago ... Jesus Ponies Dark T-Shirt - CafePressSarah Palin Says Dinosaurs are Jesus Ponies: Once again, she might not say it in front of the cameras, but Sarah Palin is a strict creationalist who ... Daily Kos: Alaskans for Truth Rally in Anchorage, AlaskaI think this is it: Sarah Palin says Dinosaurs are Jesus ponies. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. ... CafePress.com Jesus Ponies Infant/Toddler T-Shirt - StyleFeeder.comCafePress.com Jesus Ponies Infant/Toddler T-Shirt: Sarah Palin Says ... Sarah Palin Says Dinosaurs are Jesus Ponies: Once again, she might not say it in ... " and so ad nauseam. And yes people did try to shove this trash in here. Collect (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To Wikidemon: I agree that the subject belongs in the article about Sarah Palin's image rather than in her main bio, which is why I suggested changing the redirect so that it points to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy. That Bristol Palin's pregnancy and her announced engagement to Levi Johnston had some impact (both favorable and unfavorable) on Sarah Palin's image is undeniable (and, more to the immediate point, is supported by reliable sources).

To Collect: Your search for the three words "palin +jesus +ponies" is far too broad. For example, this hit from your search is a Minnesota Independent article about Palin's convention speech, which refers to "the GOP’s Jesus First base" and which draws a comment describing the convention as "a dog-and-pony show". There aren't 2.6 million Google hits for "Jesus ponies". Any article referring to dinosaurs as "Jesus ponies" will use that phrase. There are 9,620 such hits in all, of which 923 mention Palin and 8,980 don't. (I know the numbers don't add up. Go complain to Google. My search for "Levi Johnston" went from 12 million hits to 3 million in two days. Inscrutable are the ways of Google.) The rest of your argument seems to be saying that some people tried to include things in the Palin bio that you think didn't belong. Yeah, so? That wouldn't mean that no new topics can ever be added to the Palin bio, even if someone were proposing such an addition, which in this instance no one is. JamesMLane t c 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I showed the initial results -- did you fail to read them? Did you miss the archives here? My point is that material which is not relevant to a BLP does not belong in the BLP. Simple. Try it. Collect (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read all 2.6 million results. I skimmed a few. That's how I found the Minnesota Independent article as one among many, many examples of articles returned by your search that had nothing to do with "Jesus ponies". I took your initial argument to be that "Jesus ponies" and "Levi Johnston" were comparable in number of Google hits, and that if the latter merited a redirect then so did the former, and the former didn't, so the latter didn't (a classic modus tollens argument, and formally valid). I refuted the argument by disproving the first premise. If you were arguing something else, then it went completely over my head, and I apologize for mischaracterizing your position. As for your unnecessarily condescending reference to BLP, let me reassure you by quoting what I said above to Horologium: "I am not advocating creation of an article about Johnston, I am not advocating inclusion of Johnston in the Palin bio, and I am not advocating redirecting Johnston to the Palin bio." What I am advocating, as I thought I had made clear to anyone reading without preconceptions, was that, because Johnston is (per multiple reliable sources) relevant to Palin's image, his name should be a redirect to our article about Palin's image. JamesMLane t c 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In short, nothing new. If Johnston ain't in an article, redirecting to that article is Monty Python. Collect (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This all seems to be going in circles. Why doesn't someone just take this to

I don't think Wikipedia has the same "public figure" standards as US law, although the same arguments could carry weight. If you're into the soap opera aspect, Wikipedia certainly is not the most exciting place to follow it. TMZ perhaps? Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the concerns is Wikipedia#Libel and US libel law may have some relevance. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See

WP:NOTABILITY. Collect (talk

) 11:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think notability is definitely the issue here, but I think the real question becomes: Is Mr. Johnston's name mentioned in any article? If so, then a redirect to that article is definitely merited. If not, then having a redirect to nowhere would be as useless as a mud house in a hurricane. I don't have the time to search the other articles right now, and, as I've mainly focused on this article, I don't know if there is an article which mentions him, but this one definitely does not. The solution seems very simple, if there is an article stating his name, the redirect should go there, if not, it should go altogether. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

His name was in zero articles -- so one person saying we need him as a redirect added his name to an article. An interesting way of making things come true, I suppose. Collect (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, how about this as a compromise: If the change to that article was made with concensus and good faith, then alter the redirect and begin discussion of notability on that article's talk page. If there was no concensus, then revert, delete the redirect, and begin discussion on whether inlcude him into that article and recreate the redirect, on that article's talk page. Either way works for me. Does that seems fair and reasonable? Zaereth (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

En masse? I would like assurance from the editor involved that he would not take our presence there amiss, lest accusations start to fly. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I find your call for reassurances about my behavior rather amusing, given how you've acted -- such as, for the most recent example, your snarky comment above about my "interesting way" of proceeding. I won't bother recounting the full record of what happened, because snark doesn't deserve that much attention. As for the assurance you demand, find an instance in my 5+ years on Wikipedia where I've objected to editors' presence on some page, on other than COI grounds, and I'll consider whether you have a basis for concern here.

As for Zaereth, who raised a serious point about procedure: Another alternative that's been raised in the separate RfD discussion is to keep the redirect going here and to restore Johnston's name to this article. Johnston's name was in this article until a couple months ago, when it was removed by Kelly, apparently without any prior discussion on the talk page. I personally think that the image article is better (as a place to mention Johnston and as the target for the redirect), but at least two editors seem to prefer going back to the way it was before Kelly's change. Unfortunately, therefore, the subject doesn't fit unambiguously in either article's talk page. As a result, the RfD discussion might be the best place to pursue the subject, with a choice among three alternatives: restore Johnston's name to this article and keep the redirect going here; change the redirect to the "Public image" article; or delete the redirect and suppress the name entirely. JamesMLane t c 19:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(put) The impetus appears to have been the minor and trivial fact that the baby was born without deciding to post his coming on the talk page <g>. Collect (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're making this more contentious than it need be? Why not simply add his name to the existing statement about the grandchild, e.g. "Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter Bristol and Levi Johnston in 2008." That is an immutable fact that does not introduce BLP concerns that I can see. Fcreid (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A simple declarative statement without any piggybacked material should work. Collect (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For this article, I could go along with that approach. As mainstream media coverage indicates, though, the fact that Bristol and Levi weren't (and won't be) married had some impact on Palin's image. That fact shouldn't be omitted from the image article, whether or not it's reported here. JamesMLane t c 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is good to see that Editor:Fcreid is as diplomatic as he was during the election process. His solution presents a forwarding compromise. Also, Editor:JML's noting of the failed nuptuals is also valid and IMHO should be included without contention...The young man will have a Sarah Palin connection in his obituary should he live to be 100 ((and become famous for curing Cancer))...--Buster7 (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since he is not married, making an issue that he is not married seems quite POV-ish. I concurred with the fact that he is the father of the child, but now it looks like some wish to add Ossa on Pellion here, a bout a clear BLP1E person. That I would demur on entirely. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, those vile liberal Wikipedians, "making an issue" that it was a nonmarital pregnancy! Now, obviously, I'm being sarcastic here. We're not "making" it an issue. The point was blasted all over the media. The pregnancy received far more commentary than it would have if Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston were married. That was the 1E that put this LP onto the front pages. The POV would be for us to suppress the information that was widely reported elsewhere. JamesMLane t c 13:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a tabloid. That it was "blasted" everyewhere does not make it proper for an encyclopedia article. See [12] [13] etc. Levi Johnston's marital status is not relevant to Sarah Palin. Collect (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should make the edit as Fcreid suggested, and leave any "nonmarital" media attention discussion for the "Public image" article. --Ali'i 14:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a tabloid. Neither is The New York Times, which is among the many, many mainstream media outlets that have covered this point -- and according to which, Levi Johnston's marital status is relevant to Sarah Palin, Collect's personal POV to the contrary notwithstanding. The coverage is most clearly relevant to Palin's image, however. Therefore, I could see going the route suggested by Fcreid and Ali'i concerning the bio article, provided that the information is not expunged from the image article. JamesMLane t c 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue seems pretty simple to me: delete the link to this article as it obviously doesn't belong. Additionally, no mention of him should be in this article at all. Then, make an article for him separately. Easy peasy, quick and easy. And right on policy.LedRush (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

LedRush, I believe that we should have an article on Levi Johnston. I also believe that any such article that's created will be quickly deleted. Note how much flak is being put up about the simple question of even mentioning him in passing. If you want to tackle the creation of a full article, you're braver than I am. JamesMLane t c 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fcried's idea sounds just fine to me. I don't think Mr. Johnston is notable enough to deserve his own article any more than

Casey Anthony does, as their notability only extends to one event. However, I have no problem having a redirect for him, provided that it actually goes somewhere, and I think Fcried's idea solves that problem just fine.Zaereth (talk

) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One event? Are you referring to impregnating Bristol Palin? I've heard about Levi Johnston in many contexts. He was at the Republican Convention where he received considerable attention. He ws the subject of profiles. He got more attention when his mother was arrested for selling Oxycontin. He was interviewed with Bristol Palin about their upcoming nuptials, and they received yet more attention when they broke off the engagement. It may have started with one event, but his notability has grown since then.   Will Beback  talk  17:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've heard of Casey Anthony in many contexts, yet somehow, they all lead back to that one event. I'd bet good money that she got far more media coverage than Johnston. Yet, still no article of her own. However, Wikipedia does seem to find her notable enough to mention her in the article about the event surrounding her. This seems correct to me, and I believe Johnston falls into that same catagory.Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't deserve enough merit to get a mention here. That being said, Fcried's language is fine. Also, I don't know that this guy doesn't deserve his own article....guys who were once rhythm guitarists to bands I've never heard of have their own pages. Levi is more well known then many BLPs here. I just don't think he's done anything worth mentioning in a BLP on Palin.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin publicly announced that her daughter was pregnant and would marry the putative father and used the occassion to demonstrate her opposition to abortion and support of family values, both of which were positions promoted by the McCain-Palin campaign. Furthermore, she introduced the father and his family to the Republican National Convention. The story received widespread public attention at the time. All of this is relevant and neutral and worthy of inclusion in the article, as is the termination of the engagement. I agree though that he does not merit a separate article, because he is not notable beyond his connection to Palin. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To question his notability in an article about Sarah Palin is quite ridiculous. He will forever be the father of her grandchild. And, due to the fact of when his relationship with her daughter occurred he will have lifelong notability. Each "life experience plateau" he reaches will be reported in the major media. He was, is and always will be notable. A seperate article is not necessary and does a dis-service to our customer. The only reasons to omit mention of Levi Johnson or to offer an additional article is to hide his envolvement with the family. We didn't make him up. He was being "sold" throughout the campaign as the future son-in-law of the vice-presidential candidate. Now you want to hide him in the pickle barrel. I don't think it can be done.--Buster7 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Buster, you are guilty of something that Bush mastered: Bizarro Truth. The exact opposite of virtually everything you said is true. Son-in-laws almost never make it into a BLP unless they do something other than make grandchildren. Johnston has absolutely no business or relevence to this article at all. None. He was used by liberals and the media to attack Palin for her hypocritical views on religion and society. This is a campaign subject at best.

However, you may be right that each "life experience plateau" may be reported by the same media which trumped up this story. For that reason, he may be notable enough to have his own article....certainly far less notable people have article here. However, because there is no connection between Johnston and Palin's biography, his article should not redirect here.LedRush (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support Editor:Freid's suggestion and hope that we move toward consensus.--Buster7 (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, per my comment above. Zaereth (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

LedRush writes, "Johnston ... was used by liberals and the media to attack Palin for her hypocritical views on religion and society." That's true as far as it goes. It's also true, however, that Johnston was used by the Republicans -- featured as a member of the Palin family during the Republican National Convention, and included as part of the storyline of "Bristol and Levi are getting married, because we Family Values types don't believe in abortion and don't believe in single motherhood, so the kids will get married." As a result of being used by supporters and opponents, Johnston has more of a place in Palin's bio than most prospective sons-in-law (or even actual sons-in-law) have in politicians' bios. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And what about your claim befoire that the fact his mom got arrested made him "notable"? Dropped that, I see. Did he make campaign appearances? Not that I found. Not notable, and you dropped the outside claim which was a real reach finally. As for the "quote" you give, what RS did you use for it? Or is it just your own SYN on the issue? Collect (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike some Wikipedians, I don't feel a need to repeat each and every point I've made in each and every post. It doesn't mean anything is "dropped". For your benefit, Collect, just assume that every post I make implicitly incorporates by reference every previous post I've made unless clearly disclaimed or modified.

On your specific queries: The arrest of Johnston's mother certainly contributed to the scope of the media coverage of him, which is one aspect of notability. It also did have some effect on Palin's image. There were snickering comments about her connection with an alleged drug dealer. I don't recall ever suggesting that the arrest be mentioned in the Palin image article. I'd be inclined to say that the effect, although real, wasn't significant enough to be included there, but I could see room for reasonable people to disagree.

I don't know what you mean by "As for the 'quote' you give, what RS did you use for it?" Perhaps the quotation you mean is "Johnston ... was used by liberals and the media to attack Palin for her hypocritical views on religion and society." That's the only quotation I've given, but I'm reluctant to assume that's the one you meant, because my source is so obvious. The quotation was preceded by the words "LedRush writes". I wasn't suggesting that the quotation should go into Wikipedia; I was continuing a dialog with LedRush. More broadly, this is an illustration of the limitations of the

WP:RS applies to statements of fact, including facts about opinions, but not to matters such as a topic's importance or placement in the article. JamesMLane t c

18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To review:

• JamesMLane: "The arrest of Johnston's mother certainly contributed to the scope of the media coverage of him, which is one aspect of notability."
• Collect: "Sorry to hear that you do think the arrest of Levi's mom is notable...."

Collect, if you don't understand the disjunct between those two statements, then I despair of explaining it to you.

As to your latest bit of snark, I believe, and stated, that the Al Gore III article should have been kept. Nevertheless, Levi Johnston gets approximately 100 times as many Google hits as young Gore. While Google is not the be-all and end-all of notability, such a huge discrepancy might at least suggest that the analogy adds nothing to the discussion here. JamesMLane t c 02:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with giving Johnston his own article (as I've stated clearly above). He is obviously more notable than many people on Wikipedia. However, he has almost no relevance to Palin's life and his name should not redirect here, nor should be be mentioned, other than, perhaps, in the manner that Fcried suggested.LedRush (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I proffer further compromise to the existing statement that clarifies Bristol and Levi were unmarried at the time of the grandchild's birth, i.e.

• Current: Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter Bristol in 2008.[162]
• Proposed: Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter, Bristol, and her boyfriend, Levi Johnston, in 2008.[162]

To the broader issue of Johnston's notability for inclusion in the Palin article, I contend there is none. People--politicians included--are not accountable for the past or present behavior of others whom they don't control. (Think Obama and William Ayers.) The thought that Levi's mother's legal problems are relevant to Palin is ludicrous. In contrast, parents do take a unique biological and social responsibility for the behaviors of underage children (with varying degrees of frustration!) Thus, the matter of Bristol becoming pregnant as a teenager being relevant to Palin's public image article is an arguable point. It certainly doesn't belong in the main page, however. The difficulty is there are myriad dimensions of the issue that reflect either conjecture or opinion, as we simply do not know what goes on behind the Palin's doors. For example, whether Bristol was taught properly about premarital sex, whether the decision to keep the child reflected the family's wishes more than Bristol's, etc. We can never know the answers to those questions unless and until the involved parties convey them, so even in the image article it would represent an exercise in futility. Fcreid (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fcreid, you frequently argue from a perspective that seems to assume Wikipedia is a judge of truth. Our standard is verifiability, not truth. Whether people are accountable for others' actions is absolutely irrelevant here. We're not making a moral judgment about Sarah Palin. (Similarly, our discussion of the "Bridge to Nowhere" issue doesn't relate in any way to the Obama Administration's stimulus package.) From your perspective, I can see why you say that addressing the pregnancy in the image article would be "an exercise in futility", because we won't ever know enough to assign praise or blame -- but that's simply not the standard. It's especially clear with regard to an "image" article, because it's most clearly about image rather than truth. Even in the main article, though, we can't downplay subjects just because you personally think the public attention to them is disproportionate. We can say, objectively, that Palin's daughter's unmarried pregnancy received prominent mention in non-tabloid mainstream media. If you think those editors should have ignored the subject unless and until they had answers to your questions about the Palin family, take it up with those editors. JamesMLane t c 00:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything I wrote above that runs counter to your premise, James, and I don't see anything in what you wrote with which I necessarily disagree. Yes, we both know the girl's pregnancy was no one's business except the family's, but I'm not so naive to think such a reality would preclude the media from talking ad nauseam about it! Hell, flip on any news channel to see what moronic, irrelevant stories the media force-feed the public everyday as if it were somehow relevant to our lives. My point regarded the futility of expanding the matter of the daughter's pregnancy in the image article (much beyond your singular statement above acknowledging that it represented a media issue). Every matter of substance related to this issue is entirely conjecture and subjective conclusion. Was the unwanted pregnancy potentially related to her religious upbringing, puritan value system or a lack of sex education? Maybe, but we'll never know. Did the family influence the underage daughter to bring the child to term? Maybe, but we'll never know. You see my point? Just because some partisan at LA Times manages to slip an op-ed assault that masquerades as journalism past his editor does not mean we must check our brains at the WP Door and run that story as if it were verifiable truth. Regardless, these are matters for the image article, and unfortunately I have no time to participate in what will likely be some very animated discussions there! Fcreid (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know, been here before, but what's new. At least this doesn't involve "rape kits" :) Seriously, please leave the exact dates out since they do not add materially to the article, thank you. --Tom 14:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's wedding date is in his article, though not the exact dates of thee birth of his children. Why not compromise and allow the date of the elopement? sherpajohn (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP policies, unless the person publicly states a date, it is of minimal use in a BLP. Birthdates of children do not even get that much of a rationale - it is an area which almost calls for people to abuse it (note that children under 14 are protected by COPPA in the US). Collect (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I would avoiding comparing the articles. Not sure how it would improve this article. --Tom 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Wikipedia is dedicated to the facts. Marriage dates & birth dates are common facts. Why would anyone want to omit them? James Nicol (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks are quite sensitive to the fact the dates of her elopement and first birth are not 9 months apart. They believe the use these of these dates is to make it appear that she may have been pregnant (and if so, knew she was) before they eloped. If would help if she just came out and either confirmed or denied this! sherpajohn (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

These are just facts. People can use facts to draw whatever conclusions they want. It's Wikipedia's place to include facts, not hide them just because someone might draw a conclusion. Indeed, Wikipedia's greatest value is its comprehensive use of facts. James Nicol (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Basically, just because we know something, does not mean it has to go in an article. I will be reverting. People were bold, they have been reverted, now discuss. Please don't re-add the info before the discussion takes place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As pointed about above, there was repeated discussion about premarital sex ect., that was based on speculation, and birth dates and gestration lengths and premature births and space aliens, ah, strike that ect. The idea that Palin needs to even address this an "issue" is beyond silly and shows a clear agenda pushing. Anyways, like I said, at least we don't need to add a disclaimer that she is not pro rape. --Tom 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand one could argue that if indeed she did have premarital sex and eloped to ensure she was married when the child was born reflects on her overall moral character (especially in light of her religious convictions) in a fairly negative way. Its certainly not silly to want to know that a person who projects a certain image may have behaved in ways which would contradict that image. It almost seems as though the dates are being removed to avoid the possibility of this article even providing factual evidence which could be used to speculate on that. Could that not be seen as agenda pushing of another sort? sherpajohn (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The agenda to stop agenda pushing. Are we finished with the muck racking here so we can move onto to improving this article? Tom 17:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Not a collection of reports on people's "moral character". If you're looking for that, you may be on the wrong project. --Ali'i 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The marriage of a famous person & her children are NOT indiscriminate facts. Mentioning the date of Governor Palin's ONLY marriage and the dates of the births of her children--days that I'm sure she considers among the most important days in her & her husband's life together--are not irrelevant nor indiscriminate. An encyclopedia provides important facts about a person. What readers decide to conclude or speculate from those facts does not relate to the encyclopedia's duty to the facts. James Nicol (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Do you personally know the Govenor? You sure are blathering like you do. Are we still finished here? Tom 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton? No dates. FDR? No children birthdates (save one who died in infancy.) Joe Biden? No birthdates for children. And so it would appear that giving birthdates of children is far from universal on WP, correct? Collect (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Three exceptions hardly make something "far from universal". More importantly, rectify those omissions on the articles on Presidents Clinton & Franklin Roosevelt & on Vice-President Biden. Dates of marriages & of births of children definitely belong there, too. James Nicol (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe they do not. On purely moral grounds, I don't believe including personal information about a subject's children to be relevent in any article. Nor do I find it appropriate to make the subject's sex life a topic in any encyclopedic format no matter how juicy or tittilating, and have never seen such information in academic encylopedias. Beyond the scope of morality comes notability, as in, does this information give us any signifigant information about the person, or is it just trivia. I, personally, don't think knowing the exact birth dates of her children are going to reveal much insight into Mrs. Palin, but might be helpful if I ever find myseld asked about it on Jeopardy. (Doubtful though, as its not even notable trivia.) Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Comment removed per not a forum)

So using the same treatment as Bill Clinton is a "whitewash"? I would suggest that quite possibly you are letting a POV show there. Collect (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If the dates are verifiable (which I presume they are), then I see no reason not to add them into the article. Whilst years are useful, exact dates are more complete. This information isn't being added to disparge Palin, but to add more specific information to the article. If the wording was being skewed to suggest to the readers that a specific date was too early then I could understand, but simple mentioning the full dates isn't doing that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion on the matter relates to this policy:

WP:BLP#Privacy_of_personal_information, and I can very well see why such detailed information about a subject's children should be omitted. Zaereth (talk

) 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That specifically notes that if the dates are noted in one or more reliable sources it's ok to include - In this case, there's plenty of sources available to use. It also notes that for very highly notable people, it's less of a concern. Regardless of the children's date of birth, I'm not sure what possible objection there could be to a date of marriage. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to a marriage date, as that directly pertains to Palin. I do, however, disagree that children are able to provide informed consent, and, when in doubt, rule it out. Regardless of how other people choose to report, a BLP in Wikipedia needs to be held to a higher standard, in my opinion, especially where children are concerned. I believe the policy says, "err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." That seems reasonable to me. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The children are not notable and don't merit inclusion in this article(as far as I can tell), and there is also the privacy issues. The date of the marriage is fine if it has already been published by a reliable source, though I think her notability is more about her position in the election than her marriage.

Chillum

00:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the date that Sarah Palin has children is certainly a notable event for inclusion in the article. I do however espect your privacy concerns (although I don't personally agree as they're readily available in many mainstream sources). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to acknowledge the frustration of James Nichol and others, as I made similar negative assessments of the encyclopedic value of WP six months ago (albeit from the diametrically opposite pole!) While your advice to your students is sound, i.e. not to rely on WP as their sole source for encyclopedic information, you do them a disservice by not explaining the unique value that WP does bring to this and many other topics. Every word in this Palin article reflects lengthy discussion and compromise--not simply one editorial opinion, one activist agenda or even one collective thought of like minds. WP shatters "the victor writes history" encyclopedia model, and that is an extremely important point for your students to recognize. That said, I am on record (and stand by my earlier statement) that if birth dates for all Palin children could be woven into the article in an encyclopedic manner, that they would merit inclusion here. You attempted to do so, at least in presentation, but you neglected to address the matter of encyclopedic value. In the arguments above, I sense the inclusion of these birth dates stemmed from a desire to address a single point: that Palin may have conceived her first child prior to her marriage (and may remains operative, as medicine is not on your side in concluding the point). Before finding sympathy for that point, you must first provide evidence that premarital conception occurred (unlikely) and, then, address why the point warrants inclusion in her biography. What I see above does neither. Fcreid (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remove a little bit of material from the "Political positions" section that is not about her political positions: "According to Mary Glazier, an ordained minister who helped bring together the prayer networks in Alaska, Palin was an active member of Glazier's prayer group in Wasilla when God 'began to speak' to her about going into politics." This says nothing about the position she takes on any particular issue, and would more appropriately belong elsewhere in this article, if at all. It's about something that happened several decades ago, before she even went into politics.

Also, it's not clear that Palin was an active member of Glazier's group, as this Wikipedia article now asserts. The cited source merely says: "J. Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma magazine, said Mrs. Glazier recently told him that when Ms. Palin was in her 20s, she was part of her prayer network." Notice that the cited source is not attributing this directly to Glazier, but only via Grady, and so we would be obliged to do likewise. And the cited source does not say that Palin was an "active" member. And we would have to mention that the alleged statement about God beginning to speak was several decades ago, before Palin actually went into politics. All in all, this would be much more appropriate in the chronological sections of this article, if it is to stay in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That particular passage is not, by itself, a political position. I'm guessing it's in that section because of a perceived connection between religion and politics. That's a legitimate subject to explore, but nothing sensible can be said about it in a throwaway sentence. Getting into more detail here would be excessive. I agree with deleting it, but it would be a good for someone to tackle the project of including an appropriate discussion in the political positions article. JamesMLane t c 00:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a change by Greek Paradise in the bridges section...the old language was less POV and did a better job of presenting both sides of the issue. Kelly ^hi! 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As written, the article is incomplete. The $442 million was for TWO bridges. But the reader is not told what the second $200 million was for (the Knik Arm Bridge). It is not POV to tell the truth, namely to mention the second earmarked bridge. As a compromise, I am more than willing to add a separate section on the Knik Arm Bridge with any kind of compromise language. It can be one paragraph and does not have to be part of this section. We've been through this now hundreds of times. Is it proper to tell a reader there were two bridges and then not mention the name of the second bridge or the fact that it was also controversial? I think not.

Wikipedia is supposed to be like an encyclopedia. I would venture to say there is not an encyclopedia in the world that says: "there are two kinds of electric current. The AC current is alternating." and then stops without even mentioning direct current. Or says "four presidents were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, Kennedy." Or says there FICA goes to two entitlement programs: social security. (don't mention Medicare.) Or says "442 million was earmarked for two controversial bridges. One bridge was the Gravina Island Bridge" but we won't mention the second one (because we don't personally believe Palin should have been criticized for it).

It's bad writing. And it is clearly designed to hide controversy. But it is not our job to hide controversy. It is our job to present both praise and criticism of Palin's actions.

I (and others) believe some mention of Knik Arm Bridge should be in this article and am more than willing to compromise on language. I would welcome anyone else proposing such a compromise. I liked the language of the Election Day Consensus but welcome any other language that does not hide the controversy.

I fear that others are determined to keep any mention of Knik Arm Bridge out of this article, no matter what language is used. If that's true, there's no possibility of compromise.

I have reverted. Unless someone agrees to at least attempt a compromise, I propose arbitration. We've now discussed this more than 100 times over 6 months. Let's have formal arbitration and resolve it once and for all.GreekParadise (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this was the first paragraph of this section as it existed on Election Day:

In 2005, before Palin was elected governor, a $442-million earmark for constructing two Alaska bridges was passed in the U.S. Senate as part of an omnibus spending bill. The Gravina Island Bridge was proposed to connect Ketchikan to sparsely populated Gravina Island where an international airport serves over 200,000 passengers per year and the existing ferry carries 400,000 passengers per year.[100] The Knik Arm Bridge (also known as "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman Don Young) was proposed to provide an alternate link between heavily-populated Anchorage and Wasilla.[101] The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50.[100] More rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has been applied to both bridge proposals.[102] Critics of the two bridge proposals gave them national attention as symbols of pork-barrel spending, and Congress responded to the intense criticism by stripping the earmark from the bill before final passage in November 2005 and instead giving the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.[103]GreekParadise (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to Kelly's version, seems less disputed. What do others think? I am still no expert on the "Bridges" issue, so FWIW.Tom (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor:Kelly's version is NOT less disputed. If there is an expert on the Bridges to Nowhere controversy, it is Editor:Greek Paradise. I agree 100% that this topic requires formal arbitrtion and resolution. The negotiations that preceeded the Election Day version of Sarah Palin are available in the archives. The Bridge Issue, more than any other, was a constant underlying thread that was worked on by a myriad of involved editors. To water it down now is inconsiderate.--Buster7 (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The only palpable "controversy" with respect to KAB was pre-election pumped-up partisan politics, GP. WP is among the few places where the two are even mentioned in the same breath. Of course there were proponents and opponents of the KAB project--there always are of even the most necessary infrastructure projects. A few miles away, we just finished spending $3.5B (with a "B") on the "Wilson Bridge" using mainly federal monies. Bridges are expensive... if you can build them cheaper, you should start a business! KAB was *not* the Bridge to Nowhere, and commingling the two seems a blatant attempt not to report the truth but rather to inflate the costs of Bridge to Nowhere and to "pile on" for maximize political damage. KAB may warrant mention somewhere on WP for other reasons, and that article could elaborate on the reasons for the project, cost breakdowns and the perspectives of proponents and opponents. However, I contend it is not significant to the Palin article any more so than any number of other infrastructure projects proposed or accomplished during her tenure as governor (and I think anyone knowledgeable on the topic will handily refute what seems to be nonsensical, anecdotal and partisan reporting of KAB as symbolic of federal "wasteful" spending). Fcreid (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fcreid, I am more than willing to "uncommingle" the two bridges. Congress put them together, not me. And some in the media put them together. (As you know, some critics called both bridges "Bridges to Nowhere.") But you're right that the Gravina Island Bridge was more controversial. If you want a separate brief section on Knik Arm Bridge, I'm all for it. But I believe some mention should be made in this article.GreekParadise (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) The entire "bridge" section spans far too much extraneous material to a BLP. Where a person states [14] that he is specifically inserting material critical of Sarah Palin for the sake of criticism, and that he is going to delete anything favorable about her in the article, I would suggest that the integrity of the editorial process is compromised. Collect (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Most of you know that I am one of the two admins who have volunteered to watch this article and enforce the article probation. Some of you may also know I am a member of the Mediation Committee. Be aware: Mediation does not address or resolve content disputes directly, but assists editors in resolving disputes themselves. This requires participation of all editors involved in the dispute. Arbitration is not applicable in this situation at all, as arbitration does not address content but only addresses editor behavior. I suggest you continue to discuss the subject here. If you wish for me to involve myself somewhat informally and try to assist in resolving the dispute, or if you wish for more options (they exist) let me know here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, after a more careful look at the recent edit history, I see this is an incipient edit war. This is unacceptable. You cannot state "per talk page" when the talk page reflects no consensus nor even a posted rationale for the edit. ThreeAfterThree, do that again and there will be repercussions, as there will be for anyone else. Discuss this, do not edit war.

  Summary of dispute so far - this is how it appears to me, please read this ENTIRE post before responding:

1. GreekParadise wishes to include mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, as that explains an otherwise unexplained 200 mil, almost half the sum in question. GP feels it is unbalanced, misleading, and poor writing to explain half the money and one bridge, and leave out the other half and the other bridge.
2. Kelly feels it is POV to include this, and the issues are explained better if it is left out, but is not specific as to reasoning.
3. Threeafterthree reverted to Kelly's version. He states he isn't an expert, (basically absolving himself of opinion?) but states he thinks Kelly's version is "less disputed". No explanation of how that position was reached is given. (This is edit warring, btw, with no rationale given, and you are very close to being topic banned or blocked for this behavior)
4. Buster7 disagrees with Threeafterthree on two counts: he states Kelly's version is not less disputed, and opines that GreekParadise is an expert on the subject. He is not specific as to why he considers GP an expert. He offers as rationale about the disputed/not disputed version the talk page history and the election day version of the page.
5. Fcreid states this is a manufactured dispute and opines that WP would be guilty of synthesis if the second bridge is mentioned, or if not synthesis, that it is partisan to mention the second bridge and the $200 mil allotted for it (this is the summation I am least certain of, sorry - please do clarify this)
6. Collect states he feels the entire bridge section is undue weight, and mentions BLP, stating including the bridges is critical of Palin. (BTW, Collect, this is not a BLP violation. A BLP may be entirely negative and harshly critical - if it is well sourced and does not violate UNDUE. Merely because an item is critical is no reason to reduce its weight in an BLP; otherwise we'd be nothing but hagiographies.)

   Please carefully read the section in which I attempt to summarise your position and respond with one of the following: Generally correct, Inaccurate (with a brief correction), Generally correct but add rationale where rationale was lacking or unclear before; and if you have not yet stated your position please do so, briefly, as I have attempted to do with the summaries above. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi KillerC, I feel that Kelly has been a voice or reason and has edited in good faith since the election and things have calmed down. The "less disputed" is just my POV of the versions and on the wording as far as how much detail is needed in the bio. If you want to go into minutia, maybe add it to the subarticle on the bridges or campaign. To revert to a version because that was what was there back in November doesn't make much sense. Anyways, this is already more than I wanted to add, again, I feel Kelly is expressing the issues pretty well. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear you misapprehended what I said. I stated that extraneous material does not belong in a BLP. I did not state that it was improper due to the criticism. I did note, however, that one editor stated quite overtly that the reason for the bridge material was to add criticism of Palin, and that I feel such is an improper position for an editor to take, and that where the editor states an intent to remove favorable material that the issue of NPOV is inherently raised for that editor's position. Had I felt the entire issue was contrary to BLP, I would have removed it as BLP instructs. You might look at Armand Rousso where I make this position clear. We have edited the Bridge material down from its peak, but it stell represents a fairly lengthy section in this BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, thank you for your help. You have accurately stated my position. It is also my position, in response to Collect, that we must maintain a neutral POV and that it is improper to remove only criticism/controversy on the grounds that a section is too long. If so, we must remove the favorable stuff as well. My long-stated preference is to include BOTH praise and criticism rather than taking both out, but I would prefer to take both out than to only remove the critical.GreekParadise (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• This issue was last extensively discussed about a month ago and the discussion can be found in the archives here. In regards to the Knik Arm Bridge, I'll repeat the argument I made then. I don't see any reason why it should be highlighted in Palin's biography. It was never a significant campaign issue like the Gravina Island Bridge was, and Palin never requested the funds for the KAB. Her backing of it was somewhat offhand, saying that other alternatives should be explored. I'm not seeing why this would be emphasized and linked, while not other significant infrastructure issues, like her proposed road to Nome[15] or the funds certified under the economic stimulus.[16] If we mentioned every significant bridge or project supported by Palin, the article would be huge. Infrastructure development is probably the top political issue in Alaska - not surprising in a state where the state capital can't be reached and most rural residents don't have driver's licenses because there are no roads to drive on. Kelly ^hi! 14:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just an additional note, it's odd that the article has such extensive coverage of the Gravina Island Bridge, which was never a significant issue in Alaska until the 2008 campaign, and pretty much completely neglects other significant issues from her first year, like the ethics reform she worked with Ethan Berkowitz and Wev Shea or the ACES tax plain for the oil companies. For that matter, the bridge section is already 3-4 times longer than the AGIA section immediately below it. I don't know if this should be addressed by trimming the bridge section or expanding the other sections - probably a little of both. But the article currently emphasizes everything that was a 2008 campaign controversy while ignoring other, more positive or mundane, aspects of her administration. I suppose this is not surprising given the anti-Palin tone of most journalistic outlets during the campaign. Kelly ^hi! 14:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Kelly, please address the issue I raise: namely, that Congress appropriated for two bridges, that controversy caused Congress to back down on both, and that Palin has been criticized for her position on both (unlike, say, Nome). I'm not arguing for a treatise on Knik Arm, but anytime a reader sees in an encyclopeida that "two" things were done and then they only read about one, they are likely to get confused. Would you be OK if Knik Arm was just mentioned in the article while criticism and praise of Knik Arm are placed in a footnote?GreekParadise (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think KAB belongs here, it simply is not a significant issue. Some mention of the GIB should remain, but the dollar amount cited here should be adjusted to reflect only the dollar amount for Gravina Island. Kelly ^hi! 14:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with putting Nome in the article if you feel it's important. We should have an entire section on infrastructure if, as you say, it is "probably the top political issue in Alaska." I'm always in favor of more information, rather than less, and if the Nome road positively reflects on Palin and you feel it balances out the criticism, by all means, let's include it, along with any of the other pro-Palin material you mention. It's true that the section I want to include has had much more media attention than the things you want to include, but if you feel they're necessary, I won't dispute it. Throughout my entire time on wikipedia, I have taken pains not to remove verified, non-redundant information whether it supports Palin or not.GreekParadise (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but there needs to be some threshold for inclusion, i.e. notability. I'm not seeing how her offhand support for the KAB (or Knik Arm Ferry, or whatever gets put in place at the Cook Inlet) is at all notable. Kelly ^hi! 15:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, guys? With all due respect, stop engaging each other right now please. See below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Take two

If this were a formal mediation, I'd be removing or editing almost all of the posts in the section above, below my post, right now. Can you not follow simple directions? Must we move this to formal mediation? I was quite clear in my request. There is no reason for you to have immediately sunk into back-and-forth bickering on this. I will make another attempt.

• Summary of dispute so far:

1. GreekParadise wishes to include mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, as that explains an otherwise unexplained 200 mil, almost half the sum in question. GP feels it is unbalanced, misleading, and poor writing to explain half the money and one bridge, and leave out the other half and the other bridge.
2. Kelly feels it is POV to include this, and the issues are explained better if it is left out, but is not specific as to reasoning.
3. Threeafterthree reverted to Kelly's version. He states he isn't an expert, (basically absolving himself of opinion?) but states he thinks Kelly's version is "less disputed". No explanation of how that position was reached is given. (This is edit warring, btw, with no rationale given, and you are very close to being topic banned or blocked for this behavior)

   Hi KC, I feel it is "less disputed" since it places less undue weight on this "material" and basically support Kelly who seems to be a voice of reason and editing in good faith, nothing more or less. This is the first edit I have made in a month? around here and will not edit the main space again for now to eleaveate your concerns over warring and the need to escalte. Hopefully that helps with my small involvement in this lasted tiff. Anyways, good luck. --Tom (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

   I think you meant alleviate, is that correct? I have replied to that on my talk page, thanks.

   Regarding your position, it is still unclear. You support Kelly as Kelly seems reasonable? "Less undue weight on this "material"" is unclear. What material? Be clear, be succinct, and don't mention other editors, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, that is what I meant, my spelling sucks :) I feel that to much weight is being given to the "2nd bridge" and having it linked above the section in the see also. To be honest, I now can't make heads or tails of this and will step out unless I see something which I can specifically comment on. You asked me to not comment on other editors so I will shut up any further :)--Tom (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Buster7 disagrees with Threeafterthree on two counts: he states Kelly's version is not less disputed, and opines that GreekParadise is an expert on the subject. He is not specific as to why he considers GP an expert. He offers as rationale about the disputed/not disputed version the talk page history and the election day version of the page.
5. Fcreid states this is a manufactured dispute and opines that WP would be guilty of synthesis if the second bridge is mentioned, or if not synthesis, that it is partisan to mention the second bridge and the $200 mil allotted for it (this is the summation I am least certain of, sorry - please do clarify this)

   First, thanks for the facilitation. The record shows my position has been consistent with respect to commingling the two bridges and, by inference, the synthesis we create that the KAB project was symbolic of "pork barrel spending". It was an expensive infrastructure project, as most bridge construction is, but it's silly for us even to suggest that a bridge connecting the state's largest population center with its largest concentration of bedroom communities in order to reduce traffic gridlock and expand economic development is at all analogous to the GIB project which connected a tiny population that wasn't particularly interested anyway. My concern has always been that this inference makes the us, the article itself and WP (by extension) appear uninformed and misled by the partisan politics which formed the impetus of this debate. I have asked some of our Alaskan visitors for their perspective and confirmed that concern. It could be that an entire article might be dedicated to KAB, but its relevance to Palin and the "piling on" for her "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy is extremely tangential given that was one of many "valid" (as such things go) proposed state projects (and I doubt even the most expensive). GP and I have had collegial discussions on the matter six months ago, three months ago and, I hope, even still. I've never participated significantly in the occasionally heated discussions here and don't intend to do so now, because a) critical thinkers familiar with geography and federal projects will quickly recognize the sleight of hand and conclude "so what?", and b) the issue bores me. With all that said, I will defer to the community here for consensus. My opinion is that if KAB warrants its own article for the project's own merits and relevant issues, it could be wiki-linked here. Otherwise, it doesn't deserve mention and the dollar amounts should be disassociated with the Bridge to Nowhere. Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

6. Collect states he feels the entire bridge section is undue weight, and mentions BLP, stating including the bridges is critical of Palin. (BTW, Collect, this is not a BLP violation. A BLP may be entirely negative and harshly critical - if it is well sourced and does not violate UNDUE. Merely because an item is critical is no reason to reduce its weight in an BLP; otherwise we'd be nothing but hagiographies.)

I fear you misapprehend what I said. I stated that extraneous material does not belong in a BLP. I did not state that it was improper due to the criticism. I did note, however, that one editor stated quite overtly that the reason for the bridge material was to add criticism of Palin, and that I feel such is an improper position for an editor to take, and that where the editor states an intent to remove favorable material that the issue of NPOV is inherently raised for that editor's position. Had I felt the entire issue was contrary to BLP, I would have removed it as BLP instructs. You might look at Armand Rousso where I make this position clear. We have edited the Bridge material down from its peak, but it stell represents a fairly lengthy section in this BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So (again, going for clarity and brevity over details here) would it be accurate to summarize your position as Second bridge should not be included per UNDUE? Note I am disregarding your vectoring off on another editor's supposed rationale (and yes, I read the linked edit) and I request you also refrain from further speculation or comments about others motives. I will enforce the probation if I see you commenting on another editor again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for noting the posts of another editor, and used strikeout. I suggest that the bridge which was the national poltical issue was the Gravina bridge. I also suggest that since there is a separate issue dealing at length with the issue that it needs only a fairly short mention in this article (noting the existing links). Where such an article exists, I would also suggest that material which is not directly related to Palin does not need to belong in this article as it is fully covered in the linked article. Therefore, I would suggest lastly that the section be trimmed to cover the link to the other article and to material for which Palin is directly involved. I trust this works. Collect (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(This is the part everyone seems to be having trouble with, so read this again please: Please carefully read the section in which I attempt to summarise your position and respond with one of the following: Generally correct, Inaccurate (with a brief correction), Generally correct but add rationale where rationale was lacking or unclear before; and if you have not yet stated your position please do so, briefly, as I have attempted to do with the summaries above. Thanks -

Note one thing: I have not bothered to read Kelly and GP's back-and-forth debate. Let me be clear: I didn't read it, I don't care about it, and neither should you. If you cannot clearly and briefly state your position about this one thing, withou7t going off on paragraphs about your views about the kitchen sink, we will repeat this process until you figure out how to do so. Until I am clear on precisely what everyone's position is, and their rationale, we're stuck here. Your choice, people. This is precisely how I would be handling this in any other mediation. I'm the mediator. I'm the probation enforcer. I'm trying to help you find the happy solution to this: I cannot do so if you cannot follow simple directions and control your urge to argue with each other. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem is the inaccuracy involved with lumping the two bridges under the obviously POV title "Bridge to Nowhere." While there is a good arguement for explaining why a bridge to the Ketchikan airport would be called such, there are numerous sources which list the statewide benefits of a bridge to Alaska's largest city. Perhaps a solution would be to use the actual names of the bridges in the sub-section title, and add a small seperate paragraph on the Knik which should mention some of its benefits. (This is just a suggestion, however.) I also agree that beyond the scope of the campaign, the bridges both are a rather small aspect of Palin's career, and feel that just a few of paragraphs in this section should be adequate weight.Zaereth (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For us to use "Bridge to Nowhere" is not POV; we're simply reporting a phrase that was widely used by Palin and by her critics. Our problem is that "Bridge to Nowhere" isn't a formal term so it doesn't have a fixed definition. The version quoted above by GreekParadise gives what I believe to be an accurate explanation of how this oft-repeated term is used in practice: "The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the 'Bridge to Nowhere' because of the island's population of 50.[100] More rarely, the term 'Bridges to Nowhere' has been applied to both bridge proposals.[102]" That language will be helpful to the reader who's coming to the subject cold.

As for the issue of weight, it's absolutely clear that the Palin bio must discuss "Bridge to Nowhere", both because Palin herself made it so prominent in her statement of her own qualifications, and because her record on the subject attracted significant criticism. Zaereth, whether you personally believe that one bridge would confer "statewide benefits" doesn't affect whether Wikipedia should cover the controversy. I do agree, however, with giving more attention to the Gravina Island Bridge, not because we Wikipedia geniuses decide that the Knik Arm Bridge was a worthwhile project but for the objective reason that the Gravina Island Bridge drew much more flak. Even so, the ambiguity of the term "Bridge to Nowhere" should be explained to the reader, and the phrase "More rarely" accomplishes that well. JamesMLane t c 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the "Bridge to Nowhere" is more ambiguous than that. There’s also a “Bridge to Nowhere” in New Zealand, California, Florida, outer space, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to argue with you James, because we seem to be in favor of the same result. To clarify, I do not believe we should strike the term Bridge to Nowhere from the article, but if we are to lump them both in one section, it may be less confusing for the reader to simply use the names in the title, and leave the nicknames to the text. As for benefits, they're not just my opinion, and its information that is not too hard to find. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/presentations/knikarmcross_10_2008.pdf , as one example. But due to technical difficulties with my volcano, I won't be able to keep up quickly with this discussion and will leave this as a simple suggestion for now. Zaereth (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you agree with our use of the term. I approach it from the perspective of the reader, though, and on that basis I think the term should be (or at least should be included in) a section heading. A certain number of readers will want to skip over all the other stuff and get right to the facts about the "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy that they've heard about. They should be able to find it in the table of contents. My preference would be simply "Bridge to Nowhere". An alternative would be something like "Bridge to Nowhere (Gravina Island and Knik Arm Bridges)", but that's ungainly and also doesn't account for the difference in how the term is used. "Bridge to Nowhere (Gravina Island Bridge and, sometimes, Knik Arm Bridge)" would be more accurate but even more ungainly. I conclude that the simple "Bridge to Nowhere" should be the section title, with the explanation about the specific bridges in the body. JamesMLane t c 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor:KC....My summary is correct.--Buster7 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just so we're clear, KC, my reservations are with the inclusion of the KAB in the article. Clearly, a Palin controversy existed with respect to the GIB project and, a few weeks ago, I outlined my suggestions on how that content could be addressed in a neutral manner which doesn't exaggerate her involvement with the project itself but does identify her political (and verbal) missteps that led to the controversy. The KAB is an entirely different matter. This "Bridges to Nowhere" pluralization is Huffington Post nonsense that arose during the 2008 campaign, apparently to inflate the total costs of the GIB for its uninformed readers. No one on this page has ever attempted to rationalize how KAB could (even disparagingly) be referred to as a bridge to nowhere (unless you consider Alaska's largest city "nowhere!") The fact that it was outlined in a related spending bill is a silly tangent, and using that logic we might also end up with "School Systems to Nowhere", "Airport Security System to Nowhere" and what-have-you. "Bridges to Nowhere" is a partisan contrivance that is irrelevant to (and warrants no mention alongside) the actual Bridge to Nowhere controversy. Fcreid (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd kind of agree. I like to think I keep up with American politics, but I don't remember the KAB ever really being criticized/used in Palin's campaign. I remember the GIB garnering lots of remarks (from critics and Palin herself), but not KAB. I see some people said that it has received criticism and was made a big issue in Palin's life, so perhaps some references for me would help. Mahalo, all. --Ali'i 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

14:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Our story so far: it appears to me that the main axis on which the contention is resting is whether to include the KAB; everyone seems to be supportive, or at least not overtly oppose, the mere inclusion of the GIB. All the stuff about what to call the section, whether and when to include the term "Bridge to Nowhere" etc is all secondary, so lets table that for now (I promise we'll get back to it) and focus on this: Should the KAB be mentioned? It appears the primary argument for is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing. (Please ignore if my figures are wrong - that's not the point.) Not asking you to agree on how to handle that yet, just asking, can you see this point? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My only concern is that if the KAB wasn't/isn't an issue, why would we include it? Why wouldn't we just say that Alaska got $240 million (or whatever) for the GIB (which clearly should be included) and the issues surrounding that, and move on? As in, if it's not an issue, why would we include the $424M number at all? Why not just the $240M? Like I asked in my comment above, was the KAB a big issue? Thanks. --Ali'i 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 424 million that was divided between the two bridge projects, note that Congress passed the $442-million earmark before Palin was elected, and also stripped the earmark from the bill and gave the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached, before Palin was elected. So, I don't see how that makes the Knik Arm Bridge worth mentioning in this article. Even if the money had been given by the feds after Palin was elected, there are plenty of budget line items that aren't sufficiently notable to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article about a governor.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The KAB did not get the national attention about being a BtoN. It was not what caused Congress to change the nature of the earmark. The full bill included a LOT of earmarks -- the precise rationale that we ought to include both bridges applies equally well to listing every earmark in the entire bill. And since the "other" money did not apply to the bridge which got the attention, the amount which should be used is the amount for the actual bridge in question. Collect (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the GIB should definitely be included, but the KAB is an entirely different matter and should not be included. I think that packing them together was an obvious attemt by the media during the campaign to "weigh down the barrel", (or an attempt to label all bridges in Alaska "Bridges to Nowhere"), and trying to compare the two is like comparing an apple to an orange truck. (However, if the concensus becomes to include the KAB, then I think we should discuss the section title and the inclusion of content that helps to disassociate the two).Zaereth (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Ali'i: According to Google, there are 13,300 mentions of the KAB as a Bridge to Nowhere, less than the 19,100 mentions of the GIB (so less, but not much less). Everyone can check it out for himself/herself. Google both "Knik Arm Bridge" "Bridge to Nowhere". Then Google "Gravina Island Bridge" "Bridge to Nowhere." The Knik Arm Bridge Facts site (which supports the bridge) asks as one of its FAQs: Is the proposed Knik Arm bridge a good idea or a "Bridge to Nowhere"? According to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin's support of the KAB was controversial because it was considered an "alternate link to Wasilla," Palin's home town (and the closest town of any significant size to the bridge on the other side of the Knik Arm Inlet from Anchorage). At the time the GIB/KAB earmark was canceled, many cited this joint earmark as a symbol of pork barrel spending, with some mention of KAB's Congressionally-mandated name "Don Young's Way." (named after the Alaska Congressman who got the earmark). There was also a more minor controversy over whether building the bridge would harm beluga whales. No doubt there are many good and positive reasons for the bridge which Palin still supports. I don't believe we have to include all this information, but a few sentences should suffice, much as it did in the Election Day version. It would be useful to clarify to readers who read in other media sources about the two-bridge $442 million earmark but would be confused as to why the wikipedia version would inaccurately mention only one bridge of the controversial two-bridge Congressional earmark.GreekParadise (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GP, could you please elaborate on how this KAB-related information involves Palin, i.e. why it should be included in an individual's biography? It's common knowledge that Knik Arm was not the topic of her "thanks, no thanks" comments or the symbolic pork-barrel poster-child from a few years ago. So, presuming WP does not attempt to rewrite history and make KAB the Bridge to Nowhere, you are also proposing that Palin and Knik Arm are inextricably intertwined. However, none of the cherries you plucked above ostensibly involve Palin. I also don't see any discussion of the myriad positive aspects of a Knik Arm bridge. (I'm certain you must've encountered those in your research, given that support among Alaskans is overwhelmingly favorable.) Anyway, we must first agree that the Palin biography is the appropriate home for a discussion of the Knik Arm project. Fcreid (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to generally mentioning that there are other bridges besides the Gravina Island Bridge that are known as the "

Bridge to Nowhere". But specifically singling out the Knik Arm Bridge is problematic. According to Reuters (September 1, 2008), the earmark for the Gravina bridge was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge, and the latter was not notable enough to be mentioned: "The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005."[17] Ditto the New York Times and Associated Press (September 23, 2007): "Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina Islands. Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark...."[18]Ferrylodge (talk

) 21:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Ferrylodge. KAB is not the Bridge to Nowhere of Palin fame. The bridge to which she referred in her "thanks, but no thanks" speech and the one which caused the short-lived and since forgotten outrage with respect to pork-barrel spending was Gravina Island. As I've stated repeatedly, KAB has its own benefits and shortcomings along with critics and proponents, some of which GP outlined above. However, these are for reasons very distinct from the Bridge to Nowhere and have nothing to do with the controversy of the Palin campaign, so it's of little value for us to delve into these specific KAB issues until we move beyond this first issue of disassociating the two. (I will say, in advance, I have serious reliability concerns with statements implying the bridge was intended to shorten Palin's commute--not the tens of thousands of Anchorage commuters--particularly given that she had nothing to do with KAB project planning proposals and that KAB construction was proposed years before she was ever born.) However, let's get KAB out of the Bridge to Nowhere section and stop the empty argument that its mention serves to disambiguate the phrase. Fcreid (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this Associated Press article in the Alaska Politics section of the Anchorage Daily News explains well why some mention of KAB belongs in the Palin biography: http://community.adn.com/node/131399. During the campaign, Palin talked often of her opposition to federal earmarks but this earmark (and the GIB earmark) she supported and, unlike GIB, continues to support. I have placed quotations from the article in single quotations:

'Gov. Sarah Palin may eventually have said "no thanks" to a federally funded Bridge to Nowhere.

'But a bridge to her hometown of Wasilla, that's a different story.

'A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead, despite concerns the bridge could worsen some commuting and threaten a population of beluga whales.

'Local officials already have spent $42 million on plans to route traffic across the Knik Arm inlet, a narrow finger of water extending roughly 25 miles northeast of Anchorage toward Wasilla. The proposal exists thanks to an earmark request by Republican Rep. Don Young, whose son-in-law has a small stake in property near the bridge's proposed western span. '

The article also discusses a disagreement between Palin and McCain on KAB:

'At the time, Palin's running mate for the Republican ticket, Arizona Sen. John McCain, derided both projects as wasteful. He called Young's highway bill a "monstrosity" that was "terrifying in its fiscal consequences."

'Palin's record on the Bridge to Nowhere has emerged as a central point of controversy in the campaign over her recent public claims that she had opposed it, aligning herself with McCain's anti-earmarks philosophy.

'Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman. She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward.'

The article goes on to say that the Wasilla mayor supports it to cut down traffic congestion in Wasilla and that the family of Alaska Congressman Don Young would profit by it. Again I'm not arguing all these details should be in the biography, but I do think somme mention should be there. Approximately 2/3 as many articles as call GIB the "bridge to nowhere" call the KAB a "bridge to nowhere." Given that the Congressional earmark included both, McCain and others railed against both, Palin approved both, and then disapproved one, if we don't make any mention of it, I believe readers will be confused.GreekParadise (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be points to explore in that story, but we need far more research than this single writer's POV linking Knik Arm and Palin very tenuously during a heated election season. That article is factually vapid, GP. It squandered the opportunity for substantive discussion on the bridge's potential benefits and replaced that space with wild innuendo unsupported by fact. Did you see this incredible statement? "This is basically an incredibly expensive project that doesn't help commuters, doesn't help create jobs and may drive whales to extinction." It is dead-wrong on every count, and can be refuted out-of-hand by dozens of other references... why would they give him a soapbox?!

Let's look at one of the seemingly less outlandish allegations that you've specifically cited, i.e. "But a bridge to her hometown of Wasilla, that's a different story", i.e. that Palin supports the bridge because it would (presumably) shorten her commute or increase economic opportunity for her hometown. Note that this statement is not an attribution to an expert, but rather an insinuation by the author of the article himself, Garance Burke, and nowhere in the article does it establish Garance's credentials to make this insinuation. Moving forward, the facts presented to support this allegation are a) Palin tepidly supports the bridge project, and b) Palin lives in Wasilla. This is textbook specious reasoning and analogous to claiming that washing one's car causes it to rain! In short, I think it's fair to say that this particular article is neither well-researched nor balanced, and I would ask that if you wish to include any of these points that you find more balanced and authoritative sources for them.

I personally find her support for a Knik Arm bridge unremarkable, as Palin has an obligation to represent the interests of her constituency. The desire to build this has been percolating for more than 50 years and has far more proponents than critics in Alaska. The expansion of Anchorage into Mat-Su Valley is ongoing and inevitable. Barring something catastrophic, Knik Arm will (and must) one day be built to satisfy that expansion. The current temporary solution of a ferry is short-sighted, more expensive in the long-term and far more deleterious on the marine mammal population. (You don't want to see a seal or sea lion virtually explode after being gashed by a propeller blade, and unfortunately they have are attracted by the cavitation :( You will readily find much background to support my points above than affirming that a bridge at Knik Arm would cause the extinction of whales!) This bridge would already be built if it weren't so gosh-darn expensive!  :)

Anyway, for the sake of our immediate concerns, will you please concede that when congresspersons, Palin and the contemporaneous press referred to Bridge to Nowhere they were not talking about Knik Arm? Certainly, our lawmakers aren't so illiterate they would use Bridge to Nowhere to refer to both bridges in the aggregate? Palin wasn't talking about Knik Arm with her infamous "thanks but no thanks for the bridge to nowhere" speech, right? Ferrylodge provided enough reference material that wasn't weighted down by campaign nonsense that we can readily disassociate the costs and make the current section read more coherently and factually. We can then concentrate on whether Knik Arm deserves any more than a footnote here in the Palin article for its notability to the subject. Fcreid (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should get in a long back and forth on this. The quotation you cite was from a bridge opponent, not the author. The article also cites proponents and the Mayor of Wasilla herself(!) who praise the bridge's commuting advantages to Wasilla. Neither the Associated Press nor the Anchorage Daily News are known as biased or extreme sources. And I understand you love the bridge. Many folks do. I'm not looking for a full exposition in the bio. I'm looking for some explanatory mention of the bridge. I could propose language, if it would help. But at this point, it appears that people want the article to be factually inaccurate. There was an earmark for two bridges. John McCain hated both of them. Congress rescinded both of them. Palin loved both of them then changed her mind on Gravina Island. And the KAB has been referred to as the Bridge to Nowhere 13,000 times compared to Gravina Island's 19,000 times. Would it help you if I showed you 10 more articles (including from the New York Times) that call both the KAB and GIB "Bridges to Nowhere"? Might that persuade you? Just google it. James Lane and Ali'i have made the point that a reader coming at this fresh would better understand the situation if we mention in some way the KAB ("more rarely" called Bridge to Nowhere). I have no problem distinguishing the two bridges and noting that GIB was the one where Palin changed her mind. We could then put the pluses and minuses of the KAB in a footnote. And now, I'll back off and be quiet for awhile and see what others think.GreekParadise (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The only persuasive evidence you could present for me would be written prior to August 27, 2008. Anything since then is suspect. When I first started here amidst the real controversial stuff, I asked a rhetorical and somewhat disingenuous question of which periodical or other RS everyone agreed could be regarded as "reliable" during an election cycle. (I'm not a newshound and rarely read or watch the tripe on the network news and in mainstream papers.) Anyway, as you probably remember, not a single candidate RS was forwarded as objective. Six months and countless RS articles later, I see why. From my personal perspective, both Fox News and MSNBC were among the most demonstrably tainted with liberal v. conservative flavor, as were the Washington Times and NY Times in terms of print publications. Rarely did any of these change stripes during the campaign and cover a politically volatile issue objectively. Many routinely rewrote history! So, yeah, if you can show me a press piece from, say, 2005 when the Bridge to Nowhere was coined in the senate that identified Knik Arm as the Bridge to Nowhere, I'd be impressed! Oh, and I'll give extra credit if it's you find something from the NY Times admonishing our representatives for this pork-barrel spending debacle, as Gravina Island was overwhelmingly supported by the party in congress that NY Times seems to sleep among (which, if memory serves, included our incumbent POTUS/VPOTUS among the proponents of the Bridge to Nowhere funding! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your derogation of anything written during the election campaign as "suspect" is an example of what I called the Wikipedia Geniuses approach. I don't intend the phrase to be snarky or personally offensive to you or anyone else. It's intended to characterize what appears to be your view, that we editors collectively examine the evidence on both sides of a disputed issue, decide which evidence is "suspect" and which is persuasive, reach a decision in favor of one side or the other, and cause the article to announce which side is right. That's simply not the way to do things. If, in sources dating after Palin's selection as the VP candidate, there is significant criticism of her stand on the Knik Arm Bridge, then it's a candidate for inclusion in the article, even if you personally believe that the criticism was totally misguided, factually inaccurate, and motivated solely by partisan animosity.

James, I wanted to respond to your main point as you addressed it to me (and, if nothing more, acknowledge that I read and understood). I apologize to KC and others in advance, as I recognize this is a tangent and I don't wish to pull others along behind us. However, I couldn't disagree more with your underlying premise above with respect to WP. As editors of encyclopedic content of potentially historical permanence, it is not only sound guidance but should be our mandate to judge the value of content in the context it was generated. We would be remiss not to include that as at least a criteria while evaluating articles and "facts" for inclusion, particularly in a biographical article. In this case, we simply cannot ignore the unusual circumstances of the subject's precipitous thrust onto a national stage amidst the deep divisions across political lines and the acrimonious campaign that followed as potentially significant to the value of content presented. Beyond those factors, the new found role of the Internet itself as a campaign tool often overwhelmed us in sheer volume to assess for accuracy and relevancy.

We have perfect examples here of the need to evaluate content in its native context from the past six months. In one case, a joker circulated email (purporting to be from Palin) with quotes like "God put dinosaurs on the Earth to provide us oil" and other such nonsense. It was too outrageous to be believable, for most at least! The hoaxster came clean, but the email did get enormous circulation and press coverage. But the story doesn't end there. Less than one week later, a long-time Palin detractor (and fairly kooky guy, to be blunt) posted an entry on his blog describing alleged firsthand discussions with Palin in which, inter alia, he and she discussed man and dinosaur coexisting just a few thousand years ago. The LA Times ran that story--and not in their Op-Ed section--and we spent the next month here arguing for and against its inclusion in this article! Now, without being judgmental of anyone holding such tenets integral to their religion, don't you think the LA Times might have better assessed the authenticity of this guy's claims if they viewed them in the context of the practical joke from a week prior? And are you suggesting we become as blind as the LA Times, ignore that it's outlandish and unsupported by commonsense and simply include such things in this BLP because some "RS" said it?

Oh, for the record, I'm not saying Palin believes or disbelieves in any "young Earth" religious doctrine. Frankly, given her documented religious history, it wouldn't surprise me that she embraced some variation of that belief at some point. I could care less. My point above is that this story did not meet the requisite credibility criteria to make that conclusion solely from this evidence and only because of its context, e.g. the anti-Palin "drama queen" who lives for blog hits, the contemporaneous success of a "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" hoax just a week earlier and the LA Times demonstrated history of attacking Palin. Any prudent person would demand corroborating evidence, and we should too. Fcreid (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that I said such material is a candidate for inclusion. In the main bio article, we can't include full coverage of the pros and cons of every campaign issue. My current inclination is that the main bio article should cover the Gravina Island Bridge controversy (without, of course, giving all the pros and cons of even that issue, leaving detailed development to the appropriate daughter articles), but should not address the specifics of the Knik Arm Bridge.

The complication is that the phrase widely used to deride the Gravina Island Bridge, namely "Bridge to Nowhere", was also sometimes used to refer to the Knik Arm Bridge. Contrary to your assertion above, this usage is not "Huffington Post nonsense" and is not purely campaign spin. For example, the

FactCheck in its timeline

of the controversy:

July 2005: Congress votes on a bill authorizing funding for highways. The bill includes funds earmarked for the Gravina bridge and the less-famous Knik Arm bridge. Both bridges go to low-population areas and are labeled "bridges to nowhere."

In sum, many people will come to Wikipedia with the idea that there are two "Bridges to Nowhere", or even the idea that the Knik Arm Bridge is the Bridge to Nowhere, or who will at least be in some confusion on the point. That's why, whether or not our article describes the Knik Arm controversy the way it addresses the Gravina Island controversy, we should at least mention that the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" is sometimes applied to the Knik Arm Bridge. JamesMLane t c 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to walk away for awhile (really I am!), but Fcreid laid down a specific challenge that I can meet. He says above:

the "only persuasive evidence you could present for me would be written prior to August 27, 2008... So, yeah, if you can show me a press piece from, say, 2005 when the Bridge to Nowhere was coined in the senate that identified Knik Arm as the Bridge to Nowhere, I'd be impressed! Oh, and I'll give extra credit if it's you find something from the NY Times..."

Well, Ta Da! I hereby present to you, Fcried, an article from the New York Times from 2005 that mentions both bridges as Bridges to Nowhere: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html (Title: Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress). Fcried has laid down the gauntlet and I have responded to his challenge: an NYT article from 2005 labeling KAB a "Bridge to Nowhere." Pretty persuasive, right?GreekParadise (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Old news, GP. I beat you by more than half an hour. See my post above with a Sierra Club statement from 2006, a Seattle Times article from August 2005 (even earlier than your New York Times citation), and FactCheck's timeline stating that, in July 2005, both bridges were labeled "bridges to nowhere". JamesMLane t c 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This all seems very tangential. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html does not mention Palin. Nor do http://web.archive.org/web/20061020122506/http://alaska.sierraclub.org/issues/urban/knik-arm-crossing.html or http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002448056_bridges22m.htmlFerrylodge (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite its relevance or lack thereof, Ferrylodge, I stand corrected. I thought I was familiar with the "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy, as it piqued my primary interest/distaste in government (uncontrolled spending), and yet I do not recall mention of Knik Arm in the context. (As you can clearly tell, I do not concur with critics that Knik Arm is either overpriced or leads to "nowhere" at all, and I think I can make a compelling case using RS for that, but that is not at issue here.) Thus, I cede to GP and concur with James' proposal to mention Knik Arm only for disambiguation purposes. While it's certainly no imperative to do so, I see no harm as long as we don't use that as an entryway for irrelevant content that implicates Palin in any manner. There is no evidence that KAB was ever the topic of her "thanks but no thanks" speech that was the matter of political controversy in this article, and there is even less evidence that KAB ever had significance to her political career. Fcreid (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well how about something like "(Alaska's proposed Knik Arm Bridge and

various other bridges are also sometimes known by this name)"?Ferrylodge (talk

) 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Works for me. Thanks! Fcreid (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objection to this. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the "various other bridges" around the world have any connection to Palin or to the specific Congressional earmark removed by Congress as "pork barrel" that was criticized by McCain and supported by Palin. None of the other bridges were ever used to praise or criticize Palin, to evaluate her stance on earmarks, or to compare her positions with McCain. Think about it, there are few issues in which Palin and McCain formally disagreed and KAB is one of them. That alone is interesting. How about a short sentence that disambiguates KAB from the "thanks but no thanks" GIB bridge and notes that it has occasionally been lumped in with GIB as a bridge to nowhere using "more rarely" language or similar? Then, a short two-sentence paragraph completely separate from the "Bridge to Nowhere" section that explains what the Knik Arm Bridge is and how it relates to Palin using many of the neutral facts, positive and negative, about the bridge in the section as it existed on Election Day. The reader could then be directed to "Knik Arm Bridge" to get more information (as they were from September 2008 to March 2009 until the see also tag was removed). If this general idea meets some approval, I'd be happy to start a draft.GreekParadise (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful at this point, as introducing that material opens up irrelevant issues of McCain's vociferous opposition to most governmental infrastructure spending that transcend relevance to this individual's biography, even in view of her selection as his running mate. That would only be significant biographically if Palin and McCain had a documented history of being philosophically opposed in that respect, and specifically on Knik Arm, and there's no evidence to support that. With McCain's record on this, it's unremarkable that he would have opposed federal funding for Knik Arm, but I'm certain you'll find myriad other examples of state projects supported by Palin where he also opposed funding at the federal level. (For what it's worth, I oppose federal funding for it also!) Anyway, unless there is evidence that Palin and McCain specifically clashed on the Knik Arm project, I contend it is synthesis for us to single out Knik Arm and suggest they were at odds on this one project without enumerating all projects ever proposed or funded under Palin's tenure that McCain may have opposed singularly or in the aggregate. Technically, we'd have to expand that even further to any project Palin even supported, as neither Knik Arm nor Gravina Island were proposed, planned or funded under Palin's tenure. In any case, I think it's important that we not synthesize a conflict between these two that didn't exist. Another in the "for what it's worth" category... I've seen no evidence suggesting that McCain is opposed to Knik Arm Bridge or any bridge across the Cook Inlet in principle. His opposition was to funding Knik Arm (and a gazillion other things) from the federal level. I don't believe he's ever commented specifically on Knik Arm itself in terms of benefits and challenges. In contrast, he (and a few gazillion other people) saw the frivolousness in the bridge to Gravina Island project (our elusive but true Bridge to Nowhere). Thus, it's critical that we not synthesize a McCain judgment on the relative merits of Knik Arm in any WP article. That doesn't exist simply by the extrapolation from his opposition to federal funding. Fcreid (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(Parenthetical Aside) This was exactly my concern for the introduction of Knik Arm in the same breath as Bridge to Nowhere in the article, GP. It is now too easy to commingle and confuse the two projects as if they were homogeneous. I conceded the disambiguation because you guys found contemporaneous evidence that some outside sources used the term to describe Knik Arm (without arguing the validity of that use). However, it is factually and historically unsupported to suggest that issues relevant to Gravina Island apply equally to Knik Arm. In fact, they are an apples and oranges. When McCain and the rest of America was outraged at the Bridge to Nowhere as an example of pork-barrel spending, they were referring to Gravina Island which cost a quarter-billion dollars to service a handful of people. Despite the obscure references you found, that outrage does not transcend to Knik Arm and never did. Let's not relapse into the faulty syllogism that's plagued this section for months, i.e. "McCain opposed Gravina Island Bridge, referring to it as a Bridge to Nowhere, for reasons X, Y and Z. Some have (rarely) referred to Knik Arm Bridge as a Bridge to Nowhere. Therefore, McCain opposed Knik Arm Bridge for reasons X, Y and Z." I hope you can see where that fails. Fcreid (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT, the one which got the press notice was the Gravina bridge. It was the one Palin specifically referred to. The KAB neither got the press attention, the epithet "Bridge to Nowhere" in the general press, nor the referral by Palin as having been turned down. Thus it is irrelevant to the BLP here. I suppose it might be relevant to a general article on earmarks at best. The aim is to have all the material actually relevant to the BLP here, but where the KAB is not specifically relevant, it seems pointless to include. Collect (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree to somewhat with Collect that the bridge has little relevence to her, I have never adamantly opposed the inclusion of the KAB, just the insinuation that its only purpose is a route to Wasilla. Perhaps it would be best to draft your proposal and place it here, and then, once we really have something to look at, then we can discuss it in some depth. Zaereth (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

At your suggestion, I have drafted my proposal and posted it below.GreekParadise (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)