![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The wikipedia document on NPOV gives pretty clear guidelines on what constitutes NPOV. Based on that document's description:
I have gone back and tried to clean up the NPOV issues in this article. I would defer to others to decide on whether it's appropriate to remove the NPOV tag, however. Beforehand, the article came off as an argumentative essay designed to defend the bridge. While I marginally support the bridge, I believe objectivity is the focus of Wikipedia. Therefore, I've done the following: 1. Removed the section on the Knik Arm Bridge, but linked it to that article. Lots of stuff about the wrong bridge in here, and it was not made relevant to this article. 2. I left in the info on the "You Tube" video, but I deleted the claim of factual errors. Either give a citation or leave it out. Better yet, write it in a neutral context (with citations). 3. I added the length of the ferry ride to the airport. 4. I added a cited pro-bridge statement from the Alaske Department of Transportation. That beats the biased argument it replaced. 5. I corrected the price of the bridge. It's actually $315 million and cited. The $223 million figure was just the federal contribution. As I mentioned in a separate post, the article still needs some survey data -- possibly national survey data and local survey. I've heard it's about 50/50 for-against in Ketchikan, but I don't have the citation and will not include. Goeverywhere 06:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You state that the ferry takes 7 minutes but the YouTube video says it's a minute and 22 seconds. Which is correct? Even allowing some time for loading, 7 minutes sounds like a stretch if the actual crossing time was really as short as the YouTub video claims. I realize it's not a reliable source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpp42 ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Sucked in by this logic vacuum, I briefly considered suggesting building a parking lot on the airport side until I realized the futility of taking a vehicle across to the airport, that one is not going to use at the airport. The solution is to build a parking lot on the Ketchikan side, and improve the speed and comfort (a diversion of some kind that takes 7 minutes, perhaps?) of the ferry. The only problem would be deciding what to spend the remaining billions of dollars on. Anarchangel ( talk) 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The reference to Gov. Palin in the opening paragraph is obviously editorial -- her support for improving Alaska's infrastructure, followed by rejection of earmark funding for same, may both be factual -- but the sentence draws a conclusion as to why that is, that is clearly the writer's own opinion, and is not supported by the article referenced (as implied). The later reference is not verifiable, and frankly, is again, editorial in nature. IMO, this does not meet the so-called NPOV standard, and ought to be re-worded accordingly -- or, provide factual basis for the conclusion. 71.63.29.72 ( talk) eric schmitz
I suspect that mention of Ted Stevens was removed simply because of a hasty revert (evidenced by the fact that the revert re-introduced some anti-bridge bias) and not because of a desire to eliminate mention of the topic. Ted Stevens, the two bridges, and his conduct during his senate speach are all irrevocably intertwined. As such, it deserves a place on this page. -- Jorge1000xl 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia entries, so please correct me where appropriate, etc. I'm not immediately making changes in part because I'm unsure, and in part due to the broad scope of what I see as needing to be changed. There's a number of things that jump out at me about the current entry, in relation to stated facts. I'm hesitant to make some changes, as I'm not sure what the sources are for the current data. Specifically:
There's a few other problems here, e.g. while it's suggested that media coverage is critical, the critique itself is not stated, nor how dissenting views differ. "unfairly from point of view of residents" is very vauge and doesn't seem to be readily supportable; which residents, and "tied" in what way, i.e. that critical opinions cannot be applied unanimously because of differing circumstances? The 2005 Transportation Equity Act stub article seems to better define this, in its current revision, stating "Congresspersons were using the bill not for the improvement of transportation but for garnering more votes in individual districts." While the sentence structure could be improved, it does highlight a critical opinion, and gives the basis for understanding dissenting opinions that are cited. macker 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to WikiPedia too.... but wouldn't it be nice to link to the YouTube video? After all, this is the internet not a paper encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.172.168 ( talk • contribs) 13:58, August 30, 2006
I question the statement " Ketchikan's primary industry is tourism, so the bridge was designed to be tall enough to accommodate the cruise ships which frequent the Alaskan waters during the summer." I am under the impression that any new bridge built over navigable waters may not obstruct existing shipping. It has nothing to do with the importance of tourism to the city's economy.-- agr ( talk) 04:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the term "Bridge to Nowhere" be mentioned prominently in this article? If you look at press reports, this bridge is pretty universally referred to not as the "Gravina Island Bridge," but as the "Bridge to Nowhere" - even the links cited in the article call it that. So why is the term studiously avoided. Obviously the article shouldn't call it the Bridge to Nowhere itself, but it should say that the bridge came to be widely referred to in the mainstream media as the bridge to nowhere. john k ( talk) 14:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You also cut the Alternate Design. If you had bothered to check the source you'd find a press release 15 May 2007 when the design was brought to the attention of KABATA and forwarded to Alaska DOT Project Manager for the Gravina Bridge. What's your agenda in cutting the facts? DasV ( talk) 17:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be involved in an "edit war" with Duuude007.
I was curious to hear what the evidence was that Gov. Palin "flip-flopped" on the Bridge to Nowhere, so I came to Wikipedia.
When I read the references cited in this article, I noticed three inaccuracies, and I am trying to fix them.
1) The caption to the picture is a quote from a newspaper article and says that Gov. Palin "showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity." The article does not support this claim and is biased against Gov. Palin (and written after her nomination to the Republican party). I have changed the news article quote under the picture to another line in the article, which actually describes the picture: "She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians." (I'm sorry that in my first edit I altered the quote. I didn't realize it was a quote from a newspaper article.)
2) The text claims that Gov. Palin was a bridge supporter, but does not make clear the context. In the reference, Gov. Palin says she is for state support (as opposed to federal), so I changed the line to reflect that. It also makes clear that her support is consistent with not using federal funds.
3) I removed the line, "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who changed her view after Congress forced the funds to be used elsewhere" because it is not referenced and, from what I've read, Congress just removed the requirement that the funds be used for a bridge, but did not force the Alaskans to use the money elsewhere--they could have still used it to build the bridge.
Before removing my edits again, please lets discuss the matter.
Stm68 ( talk) 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)stm68
1) was referenced in both of the citations included with the quote in the footer of the image.
I will be happy to get more, as there are numerous sources to get them from.
2) I just today specifically emailed Ketchikan News to get additional information on this event, to forther solidify the citations already present:
The quotation [by Sara Palin], in the Ketchikan Daily News edition of Sept. 21, 2006, covering a gubernatorial candidates forum held in Ketchikan on Sept. 20 was:
{{cquote}“OK, you’ve got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere,” Palin said. “I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project.”}}
The governor candidates' forum was on Sept. 20
The "Nowhere 99901" shirt [was] design[ed] by a Ketchikan artist, Mary Ida Henrikson.
I was at the forum myself and can confirm the accuracy of the quotation. However, I don't know of any available video or audio recordings. The reporter would have recorded the event. ~Terry Miller, Managing Editor
Ketchikan Daily News
3) It is absolutely referenced, per the colon, in the quote (and) the source cited in the next paragraph below.
Duuude007 ( talk) 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added a new revision which includes all "original" sources of verifiable text. These should hopefully alleviate doubt to the changes I made.
Duuude007 (
talk)
04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional references. Unfortunately, I can only read #17 because I'm not a subscriber to that paper. Can you link Google caches for the other ones? The info is great, and reference 17 answered a lot of questions I had. To recap my concerns above:
1) It looks like the picture will be deleted (do you know why?), so this point is moot.
2) Your added reference #17 addressed this. (Thanks again!)
3) I still don't think it is accurate to say that "Congress forced the funds to be used elsewhere." I'm assuming you're referring to the U.S. Congress. If not, maybe that's the confusion. My understanding is that the U.S. Congress removed the earmark but still sent the money (what's up with that?!). From ref. #17, it looks like the previous governer spent most of the money on other projects, leaving Palin with only $69 million for a $398 million bridge. I edited the text to reflect my understanding, but please let's discuss if I have it wrong.
Stm68 ( talk) 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)stm68
I edited the change you made without realizing it was you who made it, sorry about that. At any rate, I am now more easily able to back up my defenses with these sources as noted in my edit log, as reference #19 speaks of the surplus budget that Palin had. The earmarks were removed by Congress, meaning Congress would not allow any additional "matching funds" to be added to the funds already given to the state to be generated for the bridge project. Plus the fact that $91 million had been spent on the bridge itself by the last governor, which still keeps it part of the $395 million pricetag. That is why the budget got out of hand. That being said, they never took back the money, as shown in reference 19, which talks about her first budget. She got very popular over the last two years because she had millions of dollars of free money to spend, and noone to tax for it.
Unfortunately I completely lucked out on the cached pages because Associated Press and MSNBC jumped all over the flipflop comment, the other ones actually do require login. But I am more than happy to post the relevant text from the article to save you 12 bucks:
February 3, 2007 Governor's new budget avoids mentioning bridge:
[[cquote|Palin did not include any funding for the Gravina bridge in her amended budget. Last year the state received $223 million in federal funding originally intended for the project, but the state could spend the money wherever it chose because Congress removed earmarks off the funding. Ninety-one million dollars was appropriated in last years budget for the bridge project, estimated at $395 million.}}
Personally, it seemed "K.I.S.S." easier to just say congress forced her to use the funds elsewhere, then veer somewhat offtopic for 2 paragraphs to explain what I meant, when the citations do that too. But that's just me. If you think it is relevant to the topic, I can add it too.
As for the image, it looks like the source I had originally cited was not the original owner of the image. I have since contacted the "presumptive" owner, to try and get his copyright permission as well. Wish me luck.
Duuude007 ( talk) 07:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a reference (which is available for free) to Palin changing her mind.
I also changed "forced by Congress", to "allowed by Congress". If Palin were forced by congress, it would be meaningless that she changed her mind because she wouldn't have had a choice.
Stm68 ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)stm68
After looking at Palin's quote again, I realized that public opinion was a large factor in her changing her mind. Plus the fact that the earmarks were removed back in 2005, 2 years before she even started office. I further updated the statement with a new citation, and I feel it is now much more accurate.
Duuude007 ( talk) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't we have a reference to hard documents about the ins and outs of the Bridge project rather than to Op Ed pieces? What is the purpose of the section? If it is to discuss the details of the Bridge project, then why isn't the actual article enough? The section itself is paraphrasing from two articles. One from Reuters, and one from Washington Post. Is it the place of wikipedia to be the reteller of journalistic stories? I mean, if you wanted to present facts, present them and link to them? In fact, it seems very silly to have newspaper stories as references... Reference, to reference, to reference? No wonder people think that Wikipedia is a bad source. Thoughts? -- 64.173.240.130 ( talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
63.105.20.36 ( talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There was an amendment specifically taking out the Bridge funds. It failed 15-82. I think this is what is meant by "voting for the bridge", not the overall bill. Here's the details of the amendment (Obama/Biden against, McCain not present.)
The Standard Bridge to Nowhere unit (BtN) is an approximate measure defined as the sum of $400,000,000 and / or approximately one Mile of suspension bridge used to easily quantify vast sums of money in simple bridge-mile terms. EXAMPLES Bill Gates is worth roughly 145 BtN or nearly enough to build a suspension bridge from Manhattan to Washington DC. Michael Dell comes in at 36.5 BtN, enough to build a bridge from Dallas to Fort Worth. The 2009 United States budget deficit is predicted to be close to 1000 BtU, the equivalent of a bridge from Denver to Indianapolis. The cost of the war in Iraq stands at nearly 2,500 BTN, or enough to build a bridge from Los Angeles to Honolulu. Finally, the United States national debt stands at 25,000 BtN, or enough suspension bridge-miles to circle the globe. Since 2003, annual interest payments on this debt ranges from 800 - 1000 BtN per year.
Bill Gates and Michael Dell: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billionaires08_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html National Debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terndude ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a wikipedia user who's new to the topic of this bridge to nowhere. I just thought that it might be helpful if editors added information on (a) why the project is/was controversial and (b) what the arguments for and against are/were. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.23.212 ( talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
OK people, this section reads awfully like its Palin covering herself after originally supporting the bridge...meaning that it's pro-Palin....meaning that it violates WP:NPOV. Come on, most of us like a candidate or two, but check your bias at the door—or be like Elvis and leave the building. Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the facts say that although candidate Palin recognized a need for a bridge, Governor Palin had a more compelling need to not waste $185M in state-funded share. The history shows a couple of users doing their best to maintain campaign rhetoric on the page instead of facts. DeknMike ( talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain–Palin television advertisements since September claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".
...was changed by you to:
Although McCain–Palin television advertisements since September report Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".
and:
Howard Kurtz called this a "whopper", writing: "She endorsed the remote project while running for governor in 2006, claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding the next year and has used the $223 million provided for it for other state ventures."
...was changed by you to:
Howard Kurtz continues to muddy the truth, calling this a "whopper", writing: "She endorsed the remote project while running for governor in 2006, claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding the next year and has used the $223 million provided for it for other state ventures."
I don't call that NPOV. I call that OR violation, and vandalization. You have done it too many times despite warnings to be dismissed as erring on good faith. You have also reached your 3RR limit, so don't say I didn't warn you. Duuude007 ( talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the picture contributes anything to the article...seems political to me. 151.207.242.4 ( talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | This image is low-resolution and depicts an event of importance in the United States presidential election, 2008. It is purported to show a candidate's support for a project she later claimed she opposed. As such it has historic value and cannot be replaced by a free image. This free use justification applies to its use in the articles Sarah Palin, the person depicted, and Gravina Island Bridge, the project in question. Note 99901 is a postal zip code for Ketchikan, Alaska where the bridge was to be built.--agr (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | ” |
The picture's existence has already been argued for these reasons. I am in complete agreement with agr. Politics is relevant, when it is injected into the topic by the person, as she did in this depicted event. Duuude007 ( talk) 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly just threw a wrench in the works and submitted the Image:Palin nowhere.jpg for deletion. In Kelly's argument, he claims that this Fair Use copyright confirmed image with the source of http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg has' no sort of copyright, and does not exist at the source. Furthermore, he thinks it would be just as easy to replace this image with "any" image of Palin. That again is a flawed argument, as it assumes that this image was a generic depiction; it was not. It was a specific, exclusive themed event that she put herself in, and is impossible to recreate the image's cited context with an alternate image of her. I ask that anyone who is interested in the role of this image to participate in the discussion Kelly created for it, so we can get this picture dilemma resolved once and for all. Duuude007 ( talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | In her public comments, referring to her own residence in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, she said: "OK, you’ve got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere. I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project" in response to an insult expressed by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens.[16] | ” |
Duuude007 ( talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
ProPublica has a wonderful picture from CNN of the "road to nowhere" stopping right where the bridge would have gone. It's here: http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-defends-construction-of-road-to-nowhere-925/ I've never done an image on wikipedia before, but it seems to me if CNN is willing to allow ProPublica to use it, CNN may not mind giving it to us. Anyone have any ideas on how to do this? GreekParadise ( talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Citations 49 and 50 are currently only links to a google news search and google web search, but not to a specific article. If nobody has a comment in the next few days I'll go ahead and remove them. Mattski ( talk) 02:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gravina Island Bridge/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Class assessment discussion== Besides a map of the projected route, and perhaps a map of Alaska/Ketchikan/Gravina Island, what else would be necessary to qualify this article as the next class? (B) Duuude007 ( talk) 21:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The wikipedia document on NPOV gives pretty clear guidelines on what constitutes NPOV. Based on that document's description:
I have gone back and tried to clean up the NPOV issues in this article. I would defer to others to decide on whether it's appropriate to remove the NPOV tag, however. Beforehand, the article came off as an argumentative essay designed to defend the bridge. While I marginally support the bridge, I believe objectivity is the focus of Wikipedia. Therefore, I've done the following: 1. Removed the section on the Knik Arm Bridge, but linked it to that article. Lots of stuff about the wrong bridge in here, and it was not made relevant to this article. 2. I left in the info on the "You Tube" video, but I deleted the claim of factual errors. Either give a citation or leave it out. Better yet, write it in a neutral context (with citations). 3. I added the length of the ferry ride to the airport. 4. I added a cited pro-bridge statement from the Alaske Department of Transportation. That beats the biased argument it replaced. 5. I corrected the price of the bridge. It's actually $315 million and cited. The $223 million figure was just the federal contribution. As I mentioned in a separate post, the article still needs some survey data -- possibly national survey data and local survey. I've heard it's about 50/50 for-against in Ketchikan, but I don't have the citation and will not include. Goeverywhere 06:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You state that the ferry takes 7 minutes but the YouTube video says it's a minute and 22 seconds. Which is correct? Even allowing some time for loading, 7 minutes sounds like a stretch if the actual crossing time was really as short as the YouTub video claims. I realize it's not a reliable source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpp42 ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Sucked in by this logic vacuum, I briefly considered suggesting building a parking lot on the airport side until I realized the futility of taking a vehicle across to the airport, that one is not going to use at the airport. The solution is to build a parking lot on the Ketchikan side, and improve the speed and comfort (a diversion of some kind that takes 7 minutes, perhaps?) of the ferry. The only problem would be deciding what to spend the remaining billions of dollars on. Anarchangel ( talk) 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The reference to Gov. Palin in the opening paragraph is obviously editorial -- her support for improving Alaska's infrastructure, followed by rejection of earmark funding for same, may both be factual -- but the sentence draws a conclusion as to why that is, that is clearly the writer's own opinion, and is not supported by the article referenced (as implied). The later reference is not verifiable, and frankly, is again, editorial in nature. IMO, this does not meet the so-called NPOV standard, and ought to be re-worded accordingly -- or, provide factual basis for the conclusion. 71.63.29.72 ( talk) eric schmitz
I suspect that mention of Ted Stevens was removed simply because of a hasty revert (evidenced by the fact that the revert re-introduced some anti-bridge bias) and not because of a desire to eliminate mention of the topic. Ted Stevens, the two bridges, and his conduct during his senate speach are all irrevocably intertwined. As such, it deserves a place on this page. -- Jorge1000xl 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia entries, so please correct me where appropriate, etc. I'm not immediately making changes in part because I'm unsure, and in part due to the broad scope of what I see as needing to be changed. There's a number of things that jump out at me about the current entry, in relation to stated facts. I'm hesitant to make some changes, as I'm not sure what the sources are for the current data. Specifically:
There's a few other problems here, e.g. while it's suggested that media coverage is critical, the critique itself is not stated, nor how dissenting views differ. "unfairly from point of view of residents" is very vauge and doesn't seem to be readily supportable; which residents, and "tied" in what way, i.e. that critical opinions cannot be applied unanimously because of differing circumstances? The 2005 Transportation Equity Act stub article seems to better define this, in its current revision, stating "Congresspersons were using the bill not for the improvement of transportation but for garnering more votes in individual districts." While the sentence structure could be improved, it does highlight a critical opinion, and gives the basis for understanding dissenting opinions that are cited. macker 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to WikiPedia too.... but wouldn't it be nice to link to the YouTube video? After all, this is the internet not a paper encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.172.168 ( talk • contribs) 13:58, August 30, 2006
I question the statement " Ketchikan's primary industry is tourism, so the bridge was designed to be tall enough to accommodate the cruise ships which frequent the Alaskan waters during the summer." I am under the impression that any new bridge built over navigable waters may not obstruct existing shipping. It has nothing to do with the importance of tourism to the city's economy.-- agr ( talk) 04:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the term "Bridge to Nowhere" be mentioned prominently in this article? If you look at press reports, this bridge is pretty universally referred to not as the "Gravina Island Bridge," but as the "Bridge to Nowhere" - even the links cited in the article call it that. So why is the term studiously avoided. Obviously the article shouldn't call it the Bridge to Nowhere itself, but it should say that the bridge came to be widely referred to in the mainstream media as the bridge to nowhere. john k ( talk) 14:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You also cut the Alternate Design. If you had bothered to check the source you'd find a press release 15 May 2007 when the design was brought to the attention of KABATA and forwarded to Alaska DOT Project Manager for the Gravina Bridge. What's your agenda in cutting the facts? DasV ( talk) 17:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be involved in an "edit war" with Duuude007.
I was curious to hear what the evidence was that Gov. Palin "flip-flopped" on the Bridge to Nowhere, so I came to Wikipedia.
When I read the references cited in this article, I noticed three inaccuracies, and I am trying to fix them.
1) The caption to the picture is a quote from a newspaper article and says that Gov. Palin "showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity." The article does not support this claim and is biased against Gov. Palin (and written after her nomination to the Republican party). I have changed the news article quote under the picture to another line in the article, which actually describes the picture: "She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians." (I'm sorry that in my first edit I altered the quote. I didn't realize it was a quote from a newspaper article.)
2) The text claims that Gov. Palin was a bridge supporter, but does not make clear the context. In the reference, Gov. Palin says she is for state support (as opposed to federal), so I changed the line to reflect that. It also makes clear that her support is consistent with not using federal funds.
3) I removed the line, "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who changed her view after Congress forced the funds to be used elsewhere" because it is not referenced and, from what I've read, Congress just removed the requirement that the funds be used for a bridge, but did not force the Alaskans to use the money elsewhere--they could have still used it to build the bridge.
Before removing my edits again, please lets discuss the matter.
Stm68 ( talk) 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)stm68
1) was referenced in both of the citations included with the quote in the footer of the image.
I will be happy to get more, as there are numerous sources to get them from.
2) I just today specifically emailed Ketchikan News to get additional information on this event, to forther solidify the citations already present:
The quotation [by Sara Palin], in the Ketchikan Daily News edition of Sept. 21, 2006, covering a gubernatorial candidates forum held in Ketchikan on Sept. 20 was:
{{cquote}“OK, you’ve got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere,” Palin said. “I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project.”}}
The governor candidates' forum was on Sept. 20
The "Nowhere 99901" shirt [was] design[ed] by a Ketchikan artist, Mary Ida Henrikson.
I was at the forum myself and can confirm the accuracy of the quotation. However, I don't know of any available video or audio recordings. The reporter would have recorded the event. ~Terry Miller, Managing Editor
Ketchikan Daily News
3) It is absolutely referenced, per the colon, in the quote (and) the source cited in the next paragraph below.
Duuude007 ( talk) 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added a new revision which includes all "original" sources of verifiable text. These should hopefully alleviate doubt to the changes I made.
Duuude007 (
talk)
04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional references. Unfortunately, I can only read #17 because I'm not a subscriber to that paper. Can you link Google caches for the other ones? The info is great, and reference 17 answered a lot of questions I had. To recap my concerns above:
1) It looks like the picture will be deleted (do you know why?), so this point is moot.
2) Your added reference #17 addressed this. (Thanks again!)
3) I still don't think it is accurate to say that "Congress forced the funds to be used elsewhere." I'm assuming you're referring to the U.S. Congress. If not, maybe that's the confusion. My understanding is that the U.S. Congress removed the earmark but still sent the money (what's up with that?!). From ref. #17, it looks like the previous governer spent most of the money on other projects, leaving Palin with only $69 million for a $398 million bridge. I edited the text to reflect my understanding, but please let's discuss if I have it wrong.
Stm68 ( talk) 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)stm68
I edited the change you made without realizing it was you who made it, sorry about that. At any rate, I am now more easily able to back up my defenses with these sources as noted in my edit log, as reference #19 speaks of the surplus budget that Palin had. The earmarks were removed by Congress, meaning Congress would not allow any additional "matching funds" to be added to the funds already given to the state to be generated for the bridge project. Plus the fact that $91 million had been spent on the bridge itself by the last governor, which still keeps it part of the $395 million pricetag. That is why the budget got out of hand. That being said, they never took back the money, as shown in reference 19, which talks about her first budget. She got very popular over the last two years because she had millions of dollars of free money to spend, and noone to tax for it.
Unfortunately I completely lucked out on the cached pages because Associated Press and MSNBC jumped all over the flipflop comment, the other ones actually do require login. But I am more than happy to post the relevant text from the article to save you 12 bucks:
February 3, 2007 Governor's new budget avoids mentioning bridge:
[[cquote|Palin did not include any funding for the Gravina bridge in her amended budget. Last year the state received $223 million in federal funding originally intended for the project, but the state could spend the money wherever it chose because Congress removed earmarks off the funding. Ninety-one million dollars was appropriated in last years budget for the bridge project, estimated at $395 million.}}
Personally, it seemed "K.I.S.S." easier to just say congress forced her to use the funds elsewhere, then veer somewhat offtopic for 2 paragraphs to explain what I meant, when the citations do that too. But that's just me. If you think it is relevant to the topic, I can add it too.
As for the image, it looks like the source I had originally cited was not the original owner of the image. I have since contacted the "presumptive" owner, to try and get his copyright permission as well. Wish me luck.
Duuude007 ( talk) 07:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a reference (which is available for free) to Palin changing her mind.
I also changed "forced by Congress", to "allowed by Congress". If Palin were forced by congress, it would be meaningless that she changed her mind because she wouldn't have had a choice.
Stm68 ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)stm68
After looking at Palin's quote again, I realized that public opinion was a large factor in her changing her mind. Plus the fact that the earmarks were removed back in 2005, 2 years before she even started office. I further updated the statement with a new citation, and I feel it is now much more accurate.
Duuude007 ( talk) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't we have a reference to hard documents about the ins and outs of the Bridge project rather than to Op Ed pieces? What is the purpose of the section? If it is to discuss the details of the Bridge project, then why isn't the actual article enough? The section itself is paraphrasing from two articles. One from Reuters, and one from Washington Post. Is it the place of wikipedia to be the reteller of journalistic stories? I mean, if you wanted to present facts, present them and link to them? In fact, it seems very silly to have newspaper stories as references... Reference, to reference, to reference? No wonder people think that Wikipedia is a bad source. Thoughts? -- 64.173.240.130 ( talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
63.105.20.36 ( talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There was an amendment specifically taking out the Bridge funds. It failed 15-82. I think this is what is meant by "voting for the bridge", not the overall bill. Here's the details of the amendment (Obama/Biden against, McCain not present.)
The Standard Bridge to Nowhere unit (BtN) is an approximate measure defined as the sum of $400,000,000 and / or approximately one Mile of suspension bridge used to easily quantify vast sums of money in simple bridge-mile terms. EXAMPLES Bill Gates is worth roughly 145 BtN or nearly enough to build a suspension bridge from Manhattan to Washington DC. Michael Dell comes in at 36.5 BtN, enough to build a bridge from Dallas to Fort Worth. The 2009 United States budget deficit is predicted to be close to 1000 BtU, the equivalent of a bridge from Denver to Indianapolis. The cost of the war in Iraq stands at nearly 2,500 BTN, or enough to build a bridge from Los Angeles to Honolulu. Finally, the United States national debt stands at 25,000 BtN, or enough suspension bridge-miles to circle the globe. Since 2003, annual interest payments on this debt ranges from 800 - 1000 BtN per year.
Bill Gates and Michael Dell: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billionaires08_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html National Debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terndude ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a wikipedia user who's new to the topic of this bridge to nowhere. I just thought that it might be helpful if editors added information on (a) why the project is/was controversial and (b) what the arguments for and against are/were. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.23.212 ( talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
OK people, this section reads awfully like its Palin covering herself after originally supporting the bridge...meaning that it's pro-Palin....meaning that it violates WP:NPOV. Come on, most of us like a candidate or two, but check your bias at the door—or be like Elvis and leave the building. Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the facts say that although candidate Palin recognized a need for a bridge, Governor Palin had a more compelling need to not waste $185M in state-funded share. The history shows a couple of users doing their best to maintain campaign rhetoric on the page instead of facts. DeknMike ( talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain–Palin television advertisements since September claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".
...was changed by you to:
Although McCain–Palin television advertisements since September report Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".
and:
Howard Kurtz called this a "whopper", writing: "She endorsed the remote project while running for governor in 2006, claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding the next year and has used the $223 million provided for it for other state ventures."
...was changed by you to:
Howard Kurtz continues to muddy the truth, calling this a "whopper", writing: "She endorsed the remote project while running for governor in 2006, claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding the next year and has used the $223 million provided for it for other state ventures."
I don't call that NPOV. I call that OR violation, and vandalization. You have done it too many times despite warnings to be dismissed as erring on good faith. You have also reached your 3RR limit, so don't say I didn't warn you. Duuude007 ( talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the picture contributes anything to the article...seems political to me. 151.207.242.4 ( talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | This image is low-resolution and depicts an event of importance in the United States presidential election, 2008. It is purported to show a candidate's support for a project she later claimed she opposed. As such it has historic value and cannot be replaced by a free image. This free use justification applies to its use in the articles Sarah Palin, the person depicted, and Gravina Island Bridge, the project in question. Note 99901 is a postal zip code for Ketchikan, Alaska where the bridge was to be built.--agr (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | ” |
The picture's existence has already been argued for these reasons. I am in complete agreement with agr. Politics is relevant, when it is injected into the topic by the person, as she did in this depicted event. Duuude007 ( talk) 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly just threw a wrench in the works and submitted the Image:Palin nowhere.jpg for deletion. In Kelly's argument, he claims that this Fair Use copyright confirmed image with the source of http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg has' no sort of copyright, and does not exist at the source. Furthermore, he thinks it would be just as easy to replace this image with "any" image of Palin. That again is a flawed argument, as it assumes that this image was a generic depiction; it was not. It was a specific, exclusive themed event that she put herself in, and is impossible to recreate the image's cited context with an alternate image of her. I ask that anyone who is interested in the role of this image to participate in the discussion Kelly created for it, so we can get this picture dilemma resolved once and for all. Duuude007 ( talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | In her public comments, referring to her own residence in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, she said: "OK, you’ve got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere. I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project" in response to an insult expressed by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens.[16] | ” |
Duuude007 ( talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
ProPublica has a wonderful picture from CNN of the "road to nowhere" stopping right where the bridge would have gone. It's here: http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-defends-construction-of-road-to-nowhere-925/ I've never done an image on wikipedia before, but it seems to me if CNN is willing to allow ProPublica to use it, CNN may not mind giving it to us. Anyone have any ideas on how to do this? GreekParadise ( talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Citations 49 and 50 are currently only links to a google news search and google web search, but not to a specific article. If nobody has a comment in the next few days I'll go ahead and remove them. Mattski ( talk) 02:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gravina Island Bridge/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Class assessment discussion== Besides a map of the projected route, and perhaps a map of Alaska/Ketchikan/Gravina Island, what else would be necessary to qualify this article as the next class? (B) Duuude007 ( talk) 21:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)