Talk:Gravina Island Bridge/Archive 1

message: '''
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)
thread_title:  Ted Stevens Removal 

message: Note: I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia entries, so please correct me where appropriate, etc.  I'm not immediately making changes in part because I'm unsure, and in part due to the broad scope of what I see as needing to be changed.
There's a number of things that jump out at me about the current entry, in relation to stated facts.  I'm hesitant to make some changes, as I'm not sure what the sources are for the current data.  Specifically:
* Population numbers not cited (census?  what year?)
* Cost per person for Knik Arm bridge doesn't cite population or total cost, and "per person served" is ambiguous as to how this is being calculated.  (Appears to be from the Salon.com article which cites a figure of "$1,500 on every Alaskan", compared to the national average, for total funding allocated from the transportation bill... not specific to either bridge, or even local population)
* Sources seem to indicate the Knik Arm is 13,500 feet, or 2.6 miles... not the 1 mile currently stated.
* The Knik Arm bridge, aka "Don Young's Way", has a cost of up to $1.54 billion according to a feasability study."$1500 per person served" does not seem to be based on this number.  Federal funding and total cost should be distinguished.
* "help aid recovery from Hurricane Katrina" is ambiguous at best, and misleading at worse.  It doesn't state what the funding would be diverted to (appears to be I-10 reconstruction, per Washington Post article)
* Not clear what the Knik Arm bridge connects.. "residents of Anchorage and the Knik Arm area" seems to suggest Knik Arm is a locality, while external sources seem to indicate that Knik Arm is an inlet, and the bridge is to span the inlet connecting Anchorage and Mat-Su Valley.
* "plans to fully fund both bridges" is ambiguous; one can assume it means that all available federal funding will be allocated, but not whether the construction will be fully funded by the federal funds allocated.  If the bridge is $1.54 billion, then the federal funds wont cover the full amount.
There's a few other problems here, e.g. while it's suggested that media coverage is critical, the critique itself is not stated, nor how dissenting views differ.  "unfairly from point of view of residents" is very vauge and doesn't seem to be readily supportable; which residents, and "tied" in what way, i.e. that critical opinions cannot be applied unanimously because of differing circumstances?
The 2005 Transportation Equity Act stub article seems to better define this, in its current revision, stating "Congresspersons were using the bill not for the improvement of transportation but for garnering more votes in individual districts."  While the sentence structure could be improved, it does highlight a critical opinion, and gives the basis for understanding dissenting opinions that are cited.  macker 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The YouTube Video 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've tried to fix it.--agr (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for bridge height 

message: 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)
replies: text: The term got dropped in a recent edit. I have restored it to the History section.--agr (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "Bridge to Nowhere" == Alternate Design in External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gov. Palin Support For Bridge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BtN - Unit of Measure 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sides / controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: As have you... Grsztalk 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The 'History' section 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe what you are looking for is detailed here: Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Picture of "Road to Nowhere" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text:  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)
thread_title:  Problems with citations 49 and 50 

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