Talk:Gravina Island Bridge/Archive 1

POV
The wikipedia document on NPOV gives pretty clear guidelines on what constitutes NPOV. Based on that document's description:
 * Media coverage of the bridge issue was heavily biassed and lacking in information.  14:16, 27 January 2006 Alyeska


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


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


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


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


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


 * The bridge is an icon of pork even when you consider it serving 8000 instead of only 50. The facts about the airport don't fundamentally change the story at all. You're still talking about a tiny community which wants a hugely expensive project it cannot apparently pay for. It remains to be seen whether the community actually needs that bridge or whether it could ever afford to pay for such a project on its own. The amount of Federal spending set aside for this bridge comes to nearly $28,000 per person! Do some basic arithmetic and you will begin to understand that the Federal government cannot buy everything that people want. Republicans ought to understand this already. If we were to spend $28,000 per person across the whole country, on unnecessary transportation projects, we'd have to spend $8.4 trillion a year JUST building bridges to nowhere.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * "Transit time averages about six minutes including docking. Then you must drag all baggage up the hill, about 250 yards, to get to the terminal. While it is possble to take vehicles across on the ferry, there is no long term parking on the airport, so your vehicle must go back to Revillagigedo Island,(the Ketchikan side) before you get on a plane. This typically takes about 45 minutes." Seems like that could conceivably take an infinitely long time. If that is how people get to the airport, at what point do they disengage themselves from the infinite loop of taking their vehicles to the airport, realizing they can't be parked there, taking them back, and then wanting to take the vehicles with them to the airport, again?

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)


 * Just a quick comment as to the reason it was being built. Ketchikan has some of the worst weather in the SE area. it averages well over 100 inches of rain a year and when it is not raining it is foggy. One of the reasons for the bridge was that when it was very foggy or the winds came up blowing hard, it was not safe to run the ferry or to try and dock it. I know this because for 10 years I spent a month in Ketchikan working there and I spent many days at a time trying to get to the airport in that kind of weather. In an emergency it was not always possible to get to the airport so they were/are still looking for a better way to access one of the only ways to get to Ketchikan. Ron Sauro - audio_ron@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.93.7 (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * I came to this article expecting to find information about the bridge, including the Palin issue, but not limited to that. Whether or not she supported the bridge can be part of a neutral article, but I would have to say that the way the article reads now, it is all about this issue.  The main article focus should not be on Palin.  Anyone who read this article a month ago would wonder why Palin was so important.  I want to know more about the controversy related to the building of the bridge.  Brucemo (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) brucemo


 * This entire article reads like a press release from the Obama campaign and would be exhibit A in a case by those who criticize Wikipaedia for having a leftist tilt. I've done enough reading on this topic to know that this page has been aggressively doctored by Obama's supporters -- since Palin's announcement as VP candidate -- and does not in any way, shape or form reflect a balanced approach to this topic. The choice of photo alone makes that obvious enough. Let's fix these POV issues ASAP. Nobamapedia (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Less than a week ago the article was tagged to be checked for neutrality. The result? It was. Facts are stubborn things. Hitler was a terrible person, not because of the opinions written about him, but the facts. The same applies to any article. Duuude007 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is so POV it isn't funny. "Facts" don't make an article unbiased.  I read an API article today that said Palin was repeating her "claim" that she killed the bridge project.  It isn't a claim, but it is fact.  So this article from API is biased and a product of shoddy journalism.  I'm sure it can be taken as fact, though...even if it is horribly biased.  These articles are still written by humans, and many of these humans have a political agenda whether it is to promote a specific candidate whom one shares their politics or to target a specific audience.   Try including a comments about Obama with a comment from Senator Colburn on it and see how far you get: http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Coburn_on_Palin_and_the_Bridge_to_Nowhere.html


 * Nobody is saying she didn't come down opposed to the bridge in the end. The point is that she supported it even after the controversy about the large pork expenditure serving a tiny number of people. Only after it became clear how much of the money would have to come from Alaska did the pull the plug. None of the facts of the situation (the massive cost of the bridge or the number of people it would serve) have changed. The only reason she went from supporting it to not supporting it was that not enough pork money was forthcoming. Hence the irony (some would say hypocrisy) of claiming to be an anti-pork champion for killing the pork bill after trying to push it through but finally seeing that there was too much opposition to get the desired monies.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Facts" on a left wing organization, individual or relevant topics are held to a different standard. That's the nature of wikipedia. Gamegrid (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. I added congressional record links for the Coburn Amendment that removed the bridge funding in favor of the Twin Span bridge in New Orleans, only to have Duuuude remove it immediately.  I resisted the urge to purge references that were only leftist blogs from the past month and not the source materials, although these should be addressed soon.68.229.122.149 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm, that would be because your "facts" were hooribly weighted, to teh point of WP:SYNTH. I had to pull your text and edit it down, or "cut the fat, as it were, so that it fit better into the article. Its still there, mind you, just more NPOV. This is a BLP subarticle, remember. Rules do apply above and beyond a basic article. Duuude007 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ted Stevens Removal
'''

I suspect that mention of Ted Stevens was removed simply because of a hasty revert (evidenced by the fact that the revert re-introduced some anti-bridge bias) and not because of a desire to eliminate mention of the topic. Ted Stevens, the two bridges, and his conduct during his senate speach are all irrevocably intertwined. As such, it deserves a place on this page. --Jorge1000xl 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have tried to improve upon the details of his tension with the Coburn amendment as well. Duuude007 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability
Note: I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia entries, so please correct me where appropriate, etc. I'm not immediately making changes in part because I'm unsure, and in part due to the broad scope of what I see as needing to be changed. There's a number of things that jump out at me about the current entry, in relation to stated facts. I'm hesitant to make some changes, as I'm not sure what the sources are for the current data. Specifically: 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)
 * Population numbers not cited (census? what year?)
 * Cost per person for Knik Arm bridge doesn't cite population or total cost, and "per person served" is ambiguous as to how this is being calculated. (Appears to be from the Salon.com article which cites a figure of "$1,500 on every Alaskan", compared to the national average, for total funding allocated from the transportation bill... not specific to either bridge, or even local population)
 * Sources seem to indicate the Knik Arm is 13,500 feet, or 2.6 miles... not the 1 mile currently stated.
 * The Knik Arm bridge, aka "Don Young's Way", has a cost of up to $1.54 billion according to a feasability study."$1500 per person served" does not seem to be based on this number. Federal funding and total cost should be distinguished.
 * "help aid recovery from Hurricane Katrina" is ambiguous at best, and misleading at worse. It doesn't state what the funding would be diverted to (appears to be I-10 reconstruction, per Washington Post article)
 * Not clear what the Knik Arm bridge connects.. "residents of Anchorage and the Knik Arm area" seems to suggest Knik Arm is a locality, while external sources seem to indicate that Knik Arm is an inlet, and the bridge is to span the inlet connecting Anchorage and Mat-Su Valley.
 * "plans to fully fund both bridges" is ambiguous; one can assume it means that all available federal funding will be allocated, but not whether the construction will be fully funded by the federal funds allocated. If the bridge is $1.54 billion, then the federal funds wont cover the full amount.


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

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


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


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

Reason for bridge height
I question the statement " Ketchikan's primary industry is tourism, so the bridge was designed to be tall enough to accommodate the cruise ships which frequent the Alaskan waters during the summer." I am under the impression that any new bridge built over navigable waters may not obstruct existing shipping. It has nothing to do with the importance of tourism to the city's economy.--agr (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to fix it.--agr (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bridge to Nowhere"
Alternate Design in External Links ==

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)


 * The term got dropped in a recent edit. I have restored it to the History section.--agr (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the term belongs in the header section. Outside of a local context, this is likely to be searched on purely in the context of the "bridge to nowhere." It is what this project is most famous for, after all. RayAYang (talk) 19:02, 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)

Gov. Palin Support For Bridge
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:

{{quote|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)

2008 Campaign Issue
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)


 * This line "In addition, both Senators Obama and Biden supported the bridge in their vote for H.R. 3058" seems to equate voting for HR 3058 as explicit support of the Gravina Island Bridge, which can't be verified in the citation.

63.105.20.36 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * HR 3058 never left the House of Representatives, so (correct me if I'm wrong) how could two Senators ever have voted on it? I think this line needs to be deleted/edited.  Twotenfour (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the references to Obama and Biden, the link you provided said the senate did not vote on this issue -- Rethnor (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully what I added to it shows that they did, in fact, vote for the act. -- Flession (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But so did 91 other senators, which makes the singling out biased reporting. It has now been posted in a way that is not violating NPOV Duuude007 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very true, and each one of those senators should probably be noted for their vote in the "Bridge to Nowhere". However, the fact that the portion of the article discusses the 2008 Election (which I assume means the Presidential Election), I feel that it is relevant (and provable) that Biden and Obama voted for the procedure as well, ignoring this fact as they posted their commercial. If the information I posted was considered biased, then you can edit it to make it sound less. But under no circumstances should those facts be disallowed from being mentioned here. That shows a willful neglect of historical fact. -- Flession (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And that is why, when someone else had blanked it, I had followed up with the correct measure and posted a compromise version showing the citations and the correct facts, in the correct chronological order. The one big thing that seems to be pushed here is the idea that whoever voted for this necessary and virtually unanimous national 2006 budget bill explicitly endorsed the bridge; I call bs on that, as the bridge wasn't given national exposure until after that bill was passed, and if you read through every line of the bill, I dare you to find the earmark that specifies the bridge to nowhere. Why dare? Because the jargon is so complex, even a trained scholar would have trouble finding it, its that misleading. As soon as it was exposed, however, it had national attention, and the same bill you mention had its earmark removed. That, my friend, is democracy in action. Duuude007 (talk) 04:08, 12 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.)
 * U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate.
 * Vote Summary
 * Question: On the Amendment (Coburn Amdt. No. 2165, As Modified )
 * Vote Number: 262
 * Vote Date: October 20, 2005, 06:03 PM
 * Required For Majority: 1/2
 * Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
 * Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2165 to H.R. 3058 (Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 )
 * Statement of Purpose: To make a perfecting amendment.
 * Vote Counts:
 * YEAs 15
 * NAYs 82
 * Not Voting 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.111.183 (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, so even though an extreme mega-majority of the entire senate (more than what is required to ratify a constitutional amendment), voted the same as Biden and Obama (over 80%), you find it worthy of singling them out for some sort of post-mortem defamation. That is truly a "neutral" point of view. /sarcasm Duuude007 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Duuude007, it seems clear you intend to keep any truth out of this post that doesn't match an anti-Palin agenda. We have removed the note that Obama and Biden voted against the amendment.  Reasons why would be editorializing.  However, edits that add to the background, such as who introduced the amendment, the Congressional cite information, the reference to the vote, etc. are verifiable background from source materials (not partisan blogs) and should not be removed arbitrarily.DeknMike (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am reverting large blocks of blanked text that you are intermixing in your edits. this is tied to a BLP. You don't do that and expect your edits to remain intact. Duuude007 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, ignorance here. What is "blanked text"?  It can't be text that I typed with my own fingers and sourced with congressional record and Alaska archives.  What other reason would you have to blow away my research?131.6.84.110 (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When you delete a paragraph of existing text, even if you replace it with something entirely new (which you did not consistently do, often you just deleted 4 paragraphs and added 2, that is called blanking. It is not tolerated on articles linked to BLP, and therefore is reverted to an earlier version from history. If you want to submit additions, like your recent ones which were not edited out because they were acceptable edits, please be careful not to remove the original context of the article, as it also has relevance. Duuude007 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to just point out first that I did not add Senator Biden and Senator Obama into the issue to just "single them out" as others have put. If I was trying to have done so, I would have done things differently. I felt that in the section of the "2008 Campaign", since Obama and Biden are running for President, and thus effectively are part of the "2008 Campaign", that such information would be relevant for the section. There were links to the votes to show who voted for what. That holds relevance, and shouldn't be held up to Duuuuude's POV of politics. I had non-partisan links to the information (they were so non-partisan, any normal person would be bored just by reading it). If I were to make a section of who voted for what with those two bills, Senator Obama and Senator Biden's name would, regardless, appear in that section.


 * So I fail to see how I'm singling out two people who, according to the section, are part of the "2008 election" (which isn't specified, to be honest. Are we talking about the Presidential election? Senatorial Election? Mayoral Election? Maybe that should be specified.) Why are you singling out Palin for her support of it? That seems kind of singling out. -- Flession (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because she campaigned for on a pro bridge platform and she is campaigning now on an anti-bridge platform. In contrast, 80 other people voted alongside Obama and Biden on that vote,, so 80% of the whole senate at 100% population not counting them. Curious that they have any relevance, seeing that they never cosponsired anything in the bill, and Obama participated in the Transparency act to prevent such an earmark from being hidden in an omnibus bill such as that again. It was an Omnibus bill, look it up. It makes a world of difference in terms of complexities. Duuude007 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BtN - Unit of Measure
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)

Sides / controversy
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)


 * A: It will cost about $400 million and carry about 1,000 vehicles a day. Need I say more? B: The project's goal was to "provide better service to the airport and allow for development of large tracts of land on the island"". Cacophony (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'History' section
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&mdash;or be like Elvis and leave the building. Cheers, -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Like this? (see small update) Duuude007 (talk) 04:23, 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)
 * You mean, like you? Here, let me quote two edits of yours.

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)
 * As have you...  Grsz  talk  15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Grsz11: Refer to Exemptions. You have improperly marked me for 3RR. Duuude007 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Imagine that! I added researched background, which Duuude007 prompty removed - I received a warning for "too many redactions", though Duuude007 continues to spew propoganda with impunity.DeknMike (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In a post that Duuude007 removed, I added the source documentation where Gov M upped the state budget from $91 to $185M, and tried to issue contracts before leaving office. On Gov Pallin's first day at work, she recended the previous budget, zeroing out the state contribution to the project and stopping the work. (ref to pdfs of letters from the Governor's office were also stripped out by Duuude007)DeknMike (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why, Duuude007, do you continue to remove facts from the discussion?DeknMike (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved your three posts here to the correct location, when you selectively posted them in the middle of older topics. I see that you are trying to defame me. The Blanking of content, the posting of unsourced content or WP:OR, or anything in violation of NPOV, is, by WP:BLP policy, required to be removed immediately. This article is indeed a merged subarticle of a BLP for Sarah Palin, which means the accuracy cannot be dubious in nature, such as I and others have noted about your previous posts. Because of its BLP nature, it has more strict standards when it comes to edits, and blanking is never tolerated. Thank you for your time, I hope you will carefully and courteously think out your next plan of action. Duuude007 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture
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)


 * This is just one of many reasons that wikipedia is viewed as a mouthpiece for left-wingers. Obama and Biden threw support behind a bill that would have funded this bridge but it isn't mentioned at all while Sarah Palin is attacked for political reasons more than anything.  If McCain/Palin loses the American election in 2008, then this story will be in the dustbin of history as a non-event or just political garbage.  Her support for or against the bridge while running for governor doesn't add anything to the article other than political bias, but hey...anyone that has a shred of intelligence knows exactly what is going on here despite the snooty responses trying to claim otherwise.  If the shoe fits, wear it.  One must wonder how many people on the Obama staff are busy editing wikipedia articles to make their opponents look bad.  This stuff happens. Gamegrid (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean 93 senators supported (and one opposed) the non-bridge specific non Alaska specific 2006 National Transportation and housing bill? and of those 93, you wish to single two senators out, who neither cosponsored, nor proposed an amendment? And you are comparing that to Palin, who campaigned for governor under the promise that the bridge would be built, and in September 2007 reversed that promise? Really now, you are comparing apples to bridges to nowhere here. Please read up on WP:MORALIZE before you attack the intelligence of the people on Wikipedia again, Thank you. Duuude007 (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If Palin were not injected into national politics I agree this would be at least be worth a discussion, but for a vice-presidential candidate whose primary position is the elimination of "pork barrel spending" to support the poster child for excessive spending is absolutely notable. Cacophony (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly just threw a wrench in the works and submitted the 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, so we can get this picture dilemma resolved once and for all. Duuude007 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You completely missed the statement she made at that same event included in the text, further proving that the image sends a message in its own right that the text does not: 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)

Picture of "Road to Nowhere"
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)
 * I believe what you are looking for is detailed here: Requesting copyright permission. It will require that the copyright holder explicitly releases permissions directly to Wikipedia (for unlimited editing & distribution) in an email. Duuude007 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with citations 49 and 50
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)


 * I believe that the relevance of the Google links was to show a solid example of 'hundreds of other media sources' using the nickname "Road to Nowhere". If you do not like the search engine link as a solid example perhaps there is a better way? I don't think it should be removed outright, as it validates the text in that statement. Let's figure out a compromise. Duuude007 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay... hectic holidays. [] Does not have seem to have specific information about search engines as a source, but a reasonable guide I would use is if I were writing a paper, would a google search string be an acceptable source?  No it would not, because google is in constant flux as its search algorithms change, sites and pages disappear or change, and new sites appear.  For these reasons, I don't consider it a reliable third party source.  In point of fact, citation 49 returns no hits, because of these issues, so I see no merit in keeping it.  As for citation 50, I feel it would be better to cite specific sources, for example by picking through these search results and choosing good ones such as well known media source.  Do you think that would support the point better? Mattski (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I could go with that. Duuude007 (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the link that had no search hits. As for the other, will update it later after I look for better sources, or let someone else handle. Mattski (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)