Talk:Alaska House of Representatives

message: See discussion at Talk:Alaska Legislature for proposal on organization of Alaska Legislature pages.  Please comment there if you've got a problem with what I'm proposing. Thanks. --AKfax 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alaska Legislature pages 

message: Has anyone noticed that all the Democratic members have articles, while only one Republican does?  It seems to be pretty blatant systemic bias. Superm401 - Talk 04:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So go ahead and create a few Republican ones?  It's not all that hard and you can get an idea for which sources are most useful by looking at the Democratic legislators' pages.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage bias 

message: The House Majority website suggests that a few Democrats are part of the majority. This doesn't seem to be reflected in the article. What's the situation now? Qqqqqq (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority 

message: I see that someone recently created a page for Pete Petersen.  I just created a page for Neal Foster, so that means that all current members of the House now have their own pages.  Don't forget that there will soon be a vacancy in the House with Nancy Dahlstrom's pending resignation.
RadioKAOS (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: All current members of House now have pages

message: So, from reading the non-explanation above, putting my energies to better use elsewhere really means I should stay away from content that others are trying to WP:OWN, pawning off all sort and manner of bullshit in the process?  Allow me to explain...
* An announcement was made regarding Zach Fansler's impending resignation on February 2 and was published by the media that same day.  That doesn't mean the seat became vacant on February 2.  While this exact practice is widespread on the encyclopedia, including quite constantly with this article, it doesn't excuse away the obvious WP:CRYSTAL and possible additional WP:OR violations.  If you had bothered to actually read the sources rather than pick one at random for the sake of claiming that you're contributing sourced content, you would have realized this.  I'm going to cherry-pick this story because it shows evidence of basic fact-checking.  Specifically, this paragraph: "His resignation was officially announced Friday morning in a regularly scheduled meeting of the House of Representatives. The letter did not include an effective date, so Fansler’s resignation will become effective Feb. 12, 10 days after it was filed."  This is affirmed by this Wayback Machine capture of the House homepage taken earlier this afternoon, which shows that Fansler is still a member.  This is not the only time Nevermore27 has done this exact same thing.  As seen in , Nevermore claims that a Senate seat became vacant on January 9.  Well, the very same reporter for the very same Juneau Empire included the following in the very first paragraph on his story about Mike Dunleavy's resignation: "His resignation is effective Jan. 15, he told the Empire".  The Wayback Machine capture of the Senate's homepage from January 14 that I viewed a week or two ago seems to have disappeared.  Sure enough, though, Dunleavy was shown as a member on that page at that time.  This is more of the same sort of arrogance in assuming that our audience is dumbed down and will accept any shit we shovel.  Please.  It suggests that our purpose is to be a dumping ground for URLs which qualify under WP:RS, that it's okay to create any fanciful narrative surrounding it, and that we have no obligation to readers to be factually accurate.  That's not what WP:TRUTH is about.  It also suggests that the mighty global giant Wikipedia is actually on the level of a fourth-rate small-town newspaper which gives more weight to announcements of occurrences than to the occurrences themselves because rehashing press releases beats the hell out of spending limited resources on actually reporting something.  In the fashion of "The Emperor's New Clothes", it seems as though the individuals who spend the most time around here are the least capable of seeing these problems.
* I was looking in the revision history for something when I see this edit summary justifying further tearing down anything not having to do with relentlessly pushing particular facets of this topic: "if we're not going to actually use the images column, there's no point in having it.".  Gee, looks like there's a gang of images over there at Commons.  I guess the redlink you see means there's no project page called WP:ITSNOTMYPROBLEM to try to excuse that away.
* For this one editor being all over this article, one would hope that the notation in the table regarding appointed members would be factually accurate and not reflect undue weight.  It appeared it was eradicated several years ago during the mess created when the article was updated for the 28th Legislature.  It was restored some time later, but originally only for Ivy Spohnholz, now also for John Lincoln, but not any other appointed members.  After all, reflecting the other appointed members would be reflecting history rather than today's headlines/trending topics within the past X number of months/years, and we can't have that around here.  I don't wish to spend further time checking how long this undue weight has gone on, but it may be necessary to point out that Spohnholz is another client of the aforementioned political consultant whose clients all magically have Wikipedia articles while many people with much stronger claims to notability don't.
* Speaking further of reflecting particular things, this tendency to use the "nolink" parameter in the name sorting template, mostly recently with John Lincoln.  This leads me to believe that we have one more editor who feels entitled to exercise veto power over the long-held stance that state legislators are automatically notable.  We saw a recent death of yet another former legislator, Mae Tischer.  However, no proclamation from the governor's office, which is typically used to source the borderline WP:NOTMEMORIAL violations which keep popping up in response.  Anyway, I'm honestly supposed to believe that unremarkable short-timers like Zach Fansler and Dean Westlake are "notable" because of when they served but that Mae Tischer isn't "notable" because she was an unremarkable short-timer in the legislature 35 years ago?  Before you answer that, consider how far this community has already gone in collectively pushing that POV.  Over on one of the encyclopedia's numerous walled gardens, we had one editor making such claims about Joshua Wright shortly after his death, yet I don't see that editor nominating the article for deletion.  Can you say "paper tiger"?  Good, I knew you could. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  23:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dude, what the actual fuck. If I made a mistake, all you have to do is politely correct it, it doesn't require a manifesto. Get your head out of your ass. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  And redux... 

message: Needless to say this article's coalition table might need to be reworked. I'm not exactly comfortable with it listing the coalition like it has a majority in the "Current composition" table. While they have the most members and the Speaker, 20 isn't a majority. You need 21 votes. Toa Nidhiki05 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucus confusion 

message: https://twitter.com/mattbuxton/status/1372605769560989702
I don't know how to edit that monstrosity of a table. Could someone else update values accordingly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.152.141.173 (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geran Tarr rejoins majority coalition