Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 18 May 2009

I'm about to post this on the Sarah Palin Talk Page -- Any reason I should not?

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

We will never come to a compromise on Sarah Palin, for the simple reason that her supporters refuse to follow wikipedia policy. They quite openly admit:

--Details of Sarah Palin's high school track status are considered more important than controversy over what she did as Governor. So her high school track stuff stays in, while building a multi-million dollar road on a bridgeless island with a population of 50, will be out, because it's been used as "campaign material." (Collect)

--"Own Research" trumps verified sources (Kelly and Fcried, who "look at a map" but won't accept the word of the Wasilla Mayor as reported by the Associated Press in the Anchorage Daily News)

--Critics of Sarah Palin will not be allowed to state verified facts in the biography if those verified facts have also been used as "political rhetoric" (Paul)

--Stating one well-sourced purpose of a bridge is not allowed because if you give it as one purpose among others, some readers will misconstrue it as the "only" purpose of the bridge. (Yes, I know it defies logic, but he said it.) (Zaereth)

Clearly compromise is impossible. After six weeks, I've painstakingly worked out, word for word, every single aspect of the first paragraph on the Bridge to Nowhere. (The painstaking compromise for Election Day, you'll recall, had been trashed without so much as a peep on the talk page, despite an express warning not to do this. (Kelly removed the warning.)) I worked with my most vocal opponents -- Collect and Fcried -- who made me prove with detailed sources: that --- yes, the Knik Arm Bridge has been called the Bridge to Nowhere perhaps half the time that Gravina Island has, --- and yes, the Wasilla Mayor has said it will help the Wasilla commute, --- and yes, McCain opposed it, --- and yes Palin supports it, --- and yes, she was criticized for it....

After spending weeks challenging my sources and after I painstakingly prove everything I've said is well documented and well verified in a myriad of sources....And after everyone has to finally admit that everything I've been saying is true...After all this hard, hard work and fights about every word, Paul comes in, with no evidence of having read our prior discussion, and trashes the whole thing -- along with the Road to Nowhere too -- and Fcried and Collect quickly back away from the compromise they had just agreed to.

The FAQ section for this talk page says "controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article."

So you can't ignore criticism. Sorry folks.

It also states " The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion.

That's right. Own research is out! Summary of previously published secondary source material, which I've painstakingly provided is in.

It also states views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics give a disproportionate amount of space to critics".

See, critics are represented if relevant and sourced and doesn't overwhelm the article. You can't only talk about her track record in high school (which, by the way, I don't consider "notable.")

Let's face it. People here who like Palin don't want anything on this biography that is true and is critical of her. They want her high school track status(!) but no mention of things she did as Governor that critics considered unwise. They want her "tip jar" as mayor but don't want her earmark-loving hypocrisies mentioned, even though she was on a national ticket with a man who has made a career of opposing earmarks (McCain), her running mate who even (inaccurately) praised Palin for opposing earmarks. I think that's notable.

That's the reason -- and let's face it the sole reason -- why folks don't want this information. Instead of providing context and presenting both sides of the controversy, they don't want it because they think it makes Palin "look bad." And they know that critics of Palin are not editing the bio right now, as they did before the election. I've restrained myself from inviting them to this discussion. But you know who they are: there are dozens of them. In fact, before election day, there were more critics than supporters. But you dozen supporters have remained editing while the many dozen supporters have gone elewhere. Like Young Trig, you want to protect Palin. I get it. I get it all too well.

But I have a dirty little secret to those of you who wish to protect Palin and hide criticisms of her. When she runs for office again -- and she will -- Palin critics will come back to this talk page. And they will add back all these verified truths and controversies that you folks are so desperately trying to keep out. I didn't add the Knik Arm Bridge orginally. I didn't add the Road to Nowhere. But they're true. They're facts. And they're notable. And they're far more important than her high school track career.

In the meantime, since I have tried hard and firmly believe we will never reach compromise, I believe we should add a bias tag pending formal arbitration. I've sent this message to KC and Johnny as well. If there's no formal arbitration, than I'll just go away, but I encourage everyone to slap the bias tag on this article unless and until BOTH SIDES of a controversy are represented on this page.

Neither nor I anyone else can move on to the other silliness on the page, because it takes six weeks to undo what one editor did without discussion. And apparently I'm the only person on this page willing to consider compromise. Well, y'know what? Compromise is a two-way street. And if people refuse to compromise, it's time to just admit the article's biased.

It is time to admit defeat. There are far too many Palin supporters who are wilfully refusing to follow wikipedia policies for this to continue further. It's a waste of everyone's time and my time in particular.GreekParadise (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been at the Sarah Palin article in the last day or so, and therefore I cannot answer your question one way or the other. However, if you're only concerned primarily about a particular section, then there's certainly no need to tag the entire article. Try:

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

It also seems to me that we might begin to make some progress regarding sources for the first paragraph of that section, if you would change your position that "I don't think these sources have to include Palin." We've got to stay away from WP:Synthesis.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, we've been over this. It's OK to cite a source on the Missouri Compromise as background to a discussion of Lincoln's position on slavery even if the source doesn't mention Lincoln. It's OK to discuss early flying efforts in a Wright Brothers article even if the contemporary source was written before they made their attempt. If I cite an article mentioning Palin on the bridges, I'm accused (by Collect) of not having an article from 2005, which he considers the only proper time to discuss background on the bridge(s) to nowhere. And any article mentioning Palin's position on the bridges is considered mere "campaign rhetoric" by Paul. She wasn't around the scene when this started but she came soon after and supported it. That's all I've ever been trying to say. We need formal arbitration. This is going nowhere.GreekParadise (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Synthesis, "Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." The key phrase here is "on the topic".Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I could put it only on the section, but it's not just the section. If others want to delete relevant, notable controversies on Palin public policy, then I want to delete the notable "early life" and "mayoral" fluff and put it in a sub-section. I happen to NOT believe Palin's being on the track team in high school is more important than her taking federal funds to build a multi-million-dollar road on an island with a population of 50 and no bridges (the "Road to Nowhere"). It's not just that people want to remove all the controversial things Palin has done. They also want to include "fluff." I say if the controversy is excluded, than the fluff should be too.GreekParadise (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we both know that your neutrality concerns are primarily about one section in particular.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked, and for what it's worth, you've never heard me raise issues with respect to the actual Bridge to Nowhere. I think it does bear mention that Palin spent her money on an access road on Gravina Island. I bet there are a lot of state projects that would be of interest in the article if the language were formulated in a neutral manner and the information were presented in an interesting and relevant way. Again, because you asked, my suggestion is (at least for now) that you drop this Knik Arm Bridge kick and focus on those issues relevant to Palin and Gravina Island. Stop trying to make Knik Arm and Gravina Island one big bundle as, simply put, doing so fails all logic and rationalization tests. Once Gravina Island is put in its proper context in the Bridge to Nowhere section, you can once again see if the Knik Arm project is relevant enough to Palin that it warrants discussion (but I assure you it won't be in the Bridge to Nowhere section if I have my druthers). Fcreid (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Fcreid. I really do. Unfortunately, every time I've tried to do the entire section -- it gets unceremoniously reverted (usually by Kelly) without comment on the talk page. Kelly never seeks to engage me or tell me why he thinks something is wrong. He just reverts and insists that his own research trump verified sources. So since I'm not allowed to give a full edit, I decided to start with one small piece, the KAB. Unfortunately, it's the one you most care about.GreekParadise (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the facts in paragraphs 2 and 3, and I'd even be willing to pare them down a bit (though if I do, people will complain, you watch). I'm fine with the language in Paul's paragraph. And I thought we had reached agreement on paragraph 1. I didn't think you'd throw the whole thing away over a footnote. If you like, I will try one last time to show you the entire section as I'd like it to be. I had one sentence on Knik Arm for disambiguation and I thought you agreed to that. Where I get despondent is after all our work, after six weeks, and finally reaching agreement, someone (Paul) just suggests we throw it all away and the Road to Nowhere to boot. And then you back off our compromise instead of defending it. That's when I knew it was hopeless. I said at the beginning that I'd be more than happy to put Knik Arm Bridge in a separate section if that's what you want, even though it makes sense as a one-line disambiguation. I'd put the stuff about Wasilla in a footnote. But I can't satisfy all of you. And I think that editors like Paul and Kelly are more interested in sabotaging the entire thing than to have any real attempt at a NPOV compromise. So let's just put up a POV tag and go to formal arbitration. You and I both know it's impossible to resolve this thing without it. Indeed, it may be impossible to solve the thing with it.GreekParadise (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fcried, I know you personally think it was wrong for several thousand separate sources (according to Google) to call "Knik Arm" a "Bridge to Nowhere," along with GIB. You probably disagree with McCain's decision to oppose the KAB earmark in the first place. And that's fine. There are legitimate differences of opinion over the necessity of the bridge. I, for one, have no particular opinion on whether or not KAB's a good idea (or GIB, for that matter). I don't live in Alaska But it's relevant and noteworthy for many reasons: 1) McCain is the champion anti-earmarker and the KAB shows that GIB is not the only "pork" Palin has championed. She was praised for cutting government spending and yet she's a big proponent of it. That hypocrisy is greater than the GIB. Perhaps all politicians are guilty to some extent of double-talking. But it's a fair criticism and should be in her bio. 2) Thousands of sources have called the KAB a Bridge to Nowhere, whether you like it or not. 3) GIB and KAB were earmarked in the same onminus bill, condemned at the same time (by McCain and others), both supported a year later by Palin, and she continues to support KAB while she now opposes GIB. I'm not trying to confuse the two bridges. I'm trying to clarify the difference. Why is clarity seen as so wrong? I'd even be willing to say in the footnote "the KAB should not be confused with the GIB, of which Palin claims to have said "thanks but no thanks." 4) You may not believe Palin's support of KAB has anything to with Wasilla. I have no idea. (I can't enter Palin's brain.) But I know the Mayor of Wasilla said the bridge helps Wasilla and there's not a single town or village on the map on the other side of the KAB from Anchorage until you get to the outskirts of Wasilla. To mention only the Mat-Su Borough smacks to me of trying to hide something. If we say Mat-Su only, people say, "what does this have to with Palin?" but if we mention that it helps Wasilla, people say "this is unfair to Palin." Well the bridge DOES help Wasilla according to Wasilla's own mayor. Period. Full Stop. And Palin has been criticized, fairly or unfairly, for supporting the bridge because of it. I've been willing to play this WAY down. Only mentioning it a footnote and just mentioning the Mayor's comment without further commentary. And even that TINY mention is too much for the contingent of Palin-protectors????? That shows no interest in compromise. The only interest is in wasting my time. All I wanted was a single disambiguation sentence. I think it belongs in the BTN section but it can go elsewhere if you like. I wasn't even going to expressly link the KAB to Palin in the footnote but allow the reader to read between the lines, saying it connected "Anchorage to the Mat-su Borough, including Wasilla", and that Palin supported the proposed bridge in her Gubernatorial campaign and, unlike GIB, continues to do so. (Cite to the Wasilla Mayor/AP/Anchorage article.)GreekParadise (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In sum, I think you can see why I'm giving up. Let's just arbitrate the damn thing. I'm confident that I am following wiki-rules and that "own research" doesn't trump verified sources like the Mayor of Wasilla. I also believe that when thousands of sources mention something, it's notable. I also think more people care about Palin's positions on public policy than her track team in high school. But if I lose, I lose. Then I can quit wikipedia once and for all and do something more useful with my time.GreekParadise (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are being true to WP goals, GP. You're fixated on Knik Arm and synthesizing relationships that have never existed between that and GIB. In the process, you're losing your opportunity to write a useful piece of this article regarding Palin and Gravina Island. I'm not going to write that part for you, as it interests me very little. (I personally don't believe even the actual Bridge to Nowhere warrants significantly more background and details than the succinct paragraph recently provided by Paul H, and I agree completely with his statement that this is almost pure and irrelevant campaign rhetoric.) It would be fair to outline the incongruousness in Palin's "thanks, but no thanks" remarks, as long as you don't again try to make the entire concept of an Gravina Island bridge hers (it wasn't). But, please, give up on Knik Arm. Despite the "spinmeisters" (to use her term) political nonsense about Knik Arm a few months ago, the Coburn Amendment (2165 to HR 3058) makes it perfectly clear to the open mind that funding for Knik Arm was diverted to post-Katrina recovery, and not with undue prejudice for the importance or ultimate construction of the Knik Arm project itself. I suspect the reason you don't have all those other folks rallying around you like you had in September was that their goals had nothing to do with ensuring factual, relevant content. I believe you're above that. Fcreid (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya

Sorry to hear you're feeling so discouraged. I'm completely exhausted from a pair of very rough days at work, but I'll have a look-see in the morning. FWIW, I don't get the impression that anyone is questioning the quality of your research, but rather whether it's the sort of concrete connection to Ms. Palin that an encyclopedia entry on her needs to contain. --SB_Johnny | 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, I have shown them article after credible article connecting Palin to Knik Arm. I understand that many don't agree with the views of the reporters of the Associated Press or the Anchorage Daily News or the Mayor of Wasila. But whether they agree or not, these are reliable sources. And they make concrete the connection between Palin and the Knik Arm Bridge which she continues to actively support. I have an article dated April 16, 2009 on her continuing support despite its potential harm to beluga whales. (http://www.fortmilltimes.com/124/story/531917.html)

My long rant and hopelessness at the prospect of compromise appears to have convinced a few to try again. So I've deleted what I wrote above (though obviously, anyone can look it up in the history) in a good-faith attempt to give this one last college try. But if we can't resolve it by the weekend, I would like to know the process on how to undergo formal arbitration. What are the proper dispute resolution procedures when compromise seems hopeless?GreekParadise (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to dissappoint you by not staying at the Bridge. But it was such a waste of time and effort over an Alaskan Bridge that I really cared nothing about. I am spending my WikiTime involved in a very important Rfc that you might find interesting. WikiCanvassing prevents me from saying any more!--Buster7 (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As people now say they refuse to compromise, I have sadly undeleted the above.GreekParadise (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Look-see findings

I finally had a chance to look at this today, a good long and careful look. Your research into the issue is admirable, but if you're asking me to weigh in on what's fair and what's not, I'm afraid I have to tell you that it looks to me like you haven't been able to prove the point that this reference belongs on Sarah Palin's biographical article. The only reason the other bridge is even worth mentioning is because she made a soundbite out of it, and the soundbite came back and bit her in return. The KAB doesn't seem to be the bridge she was talking about, at least not according to the references you've given. What McCain talked about isn't relevant unless she responded to it in a very notable way. Without a very direct and reliable reference saying that her "no thanks" speech was referring to the KAB as well as the other one, it's really just not relevant. It's a very cut-and-dry case, unless you can find a better reference. --SB_Johnny | 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, I've never argued she said "thanks but no thanks" on KAB. I've said that from the very outset. If that were the standard, I wouldn't have wasted 1 month and 20 hours of my time. I've always acknowledged they were two different bridges. I want to distinguish the two bridges. There are several THOUSAND mentions of Palin supporting the KAB as the "Other Bridge to Nowhere," ] more than 40% as many as mention Palin supporting the GIB ]. I've asked that KAB not be given 40% of the space of GIB but be mentioned in one sentence and footnote. (When Fcried agreed to this and then changed his mind and rejected it, I showed him what it would like as a separate section but that is not my preferred solution.)

If there is no mention of the KAB anywhere in the bio, a reader who reads one of these thousands of articles about the the two "bridges to nowhere" Palin supported and looked for them in the bio would find nothing there. Surely that's why an editor added the KAB to the bio in the first place before I first read it in September 2008. The KAB has been in the bio unchallenged for more than six months, usually in a several-sentence version.

Why was it put there originally? 1) Because it's part of the story. If you tell the story of GIB without mentioning KAB, you have to manipulate the truth in ways that would confuse the encyclopedia reader. You would have to claim there was just one $213 million earmark on one controversial Alaska bridge McCain opposed when virtually all of the contemporary accounts mention both bridges (the KAB got an even larger portion of the earmarked funds than the GIB! (230 million)) and a total of $450 million and McCain strenuously opposed both of them. A reader who saw the accurate source we cite to would suspect that wikipedia just doesn't know what it's talking about because the text would not match the source.

2) Because it's relevant to Palin. McCain trotted Palin out as a fierce opponent of earmarks and pork barrel spending. The KAB proves this is incorrect even more than GIB because she changed her mind on GIB and conformed with McCain's position. On KAB, they still disagree! It's also relevant in that it shows her conflict with the NOAA on environmental matters (there's an article about this on April 16, 2009 so the conflict is still on-going.) And some critics say she supports the $600+ million KAB (with more than $200+ million from federal funds) because it benefits her hometown.

3) So is the KAB, an admittedly important spending priority of the Palin Administration -- so important she's battling the Feds and disagreeing with McCain on it (he called it a "monstrosity") -- important enough for this bio? Well, we mention her building roads and sewers as mayor. Heck we mention her high school track team! And this bridge affects a heckuva lot more people than her track team. It has also received far more press attention than the roads and sewers!

4) So why not give it one measly sentence? That way we don't have to manipulate the truth, misstate the sources, or hide a controversial public policy she supports.

No the two bridges are not identical. That's precisely the point. I want to distinguish betweeen them so the article is accurate. If we fail to include the KAB with just one sentence (which is all I've ever asked for), the article becomes inaccurate or at least incomplete and it hides an important Palin controversy. The original KAB version was about 4-5 sentences. I propose 1 sentence or more. I oppose zero mention.GreekParadise (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not really me that you have to convince (or KC, for that matter): you asked me to look into it, and your sources just don't make the connection that the other contributors have been asking for. If it plays a large role in her governorship, it probably should go in that section (or in the separate article). Honestly it's just beyond me why you folks are so wound up over it :-).

BTW: your tone in some of your most recent comments on the talk page isn't going to make people want to work with you. It's verging a bit on "holier than thou", if you catch my drift. --SB_Johnny | 09:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, I have no idea what you mean by "your sources just don't make the connection that the other contributors have been asking for." What connection? I've explained it all, and they have failed to address my arguments. Kelly just says "no no no" and says his own research trumps my verified sources.

The history here is important. At the beginning, all the pro-Palin editors agreed on a sentence to mention Knik Arm as long as we leave out Palin's support for the bridge and the charges by some critics that she wants it because it helps her hometown. We end up in this glorious contradiction: We can mention KAB in the Palin bio ONLY if we show it has having no connection to Palin. That's Orwellian. It should be in the bio because it DOES have a connection to Palin, which I've shown by umpteen verified sources Then my sources were attacked and I proved every one of them in mind-numbing verifiable detail. Fcried and Collect even came around to a compromise with me and then when I metaphorically broke open the champaign, they abruptly changed their mind.

Fcried asked me to put the KAB in an entirely separate section, which I was happy to do. I'm OK with it in her governorship. Now they refuse to give reasons and say they're "not in the mood to compromise anymore." Hence my tone. If no one except me is "in the mood to compromise," then we'll only get somewhere either by arbitration or by my quitting wikipedia (which, I suspect, is their real goal). So how do I do arbitration? I've never done it before. Please walk me through the steps. There's clearly no point in continuing now that folks want to change the facts and pretend that history didn't happen the way it did. Now that they've won on KAB, they're proceeding to cut the Road to Nowhere entirely without any discussion. Next up, they'll say she never lost the election.  :-/

Compromise is impossible. That's what THEY have said. How do I arbitrate?GreekParadise (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect RfC

Given your experience at the Palin article, you may wish to comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the reason I came back to wikipedia.

Moved from user talk:ikip

Your short comment on my talk page "Are you still editing?" made me realize I was missed.

Therefore, I thought you should know I'm not long for this wikipedia world. Collect and others like him are too anxious to ram their POV down everyone's throats and to hide the flaws of people they love like Sarah Palin. There was a time when people gave good arguments on why something should or should not be included. Today, it's just "no, no, no" and an expressed "unwillingness to compromise." Anyway, I just write to tell you goodbye. I'm going to try some form of formal arbitration. If that fails, I'm outta here. I got more important things to do than to waste my time beating my head against a wall just because I ridiculously believe an online encyclopedia should be comprehensive and accurate. If people actually addressed my arguments, I'd stay. But they don't, so what's the point?

But hey, thanks for inviting me back. It was appreciated sincerely.GreekParadise (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The drama continues, failing to change the RfC talk page views by shear number of edits, Soxwon is creating drama outside of the RfC: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FWikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FCollect

I am glad you came back. I would STRONGLY suggest adding an email address, so we can bitch about how much we hate this site with no repurcussions. i hope you stay. Ikip (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is an email address allowed? I don't want to break the rules. Here's one I created temporarily. If someone tells me it's wrong to have an email address here, I can always delete it: GreekParadise1@yahoo.com

You can enable your email (so that others can contact you, without displaying your address), by going to your preferences screen and adding an address. It adds a little "email this user" button to the toolbox on the toolbar, and (best of all), nobody knows your e-mail address unless you respond, or if you initiate an email exchange. Horologium (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this tidbit! I have done so.GreekParadise (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dem pesky bridges

GP, I’m probably not the best person to ask. But a review of your epic battle to keep significant, relevant, reliably sourced and correctly-weighted information in the article seems to show you getting hammered, steamrollered, filibustered, stonewalled, ignored and misrepresented etc. by many responses that appear to do more to whitewash the BLP than to work towards NPOV.

I don’t see you being able to overcome Saint Sarah's disciples' apparent resistance to NPOV in the foreseeable future.

I think it might be a good idea to save yourself from any further stress for a while. ("Look you stupid bastard you’ve got no arms left!" "Yes I have!" ) Return to SP refreshed if you feel like it some time in the future, when your arms have grown back, or if she runs again (which she won’t), in which case her BLP will once again become the research tool of choice for the totally clueless.

I console myself with the thought that to educated people WP is mostly just a bad joke. So devoting as much time to WP as we do requires that we have a surreal sense of humour, and maintain it in full working order.

I don’t see you being able to fix the bridges single-handed. Those who battled for NPOV there seem to have melted away. And personally, I'm sorry but I just don't have the stomach for battling hagiography any more; my WP activity is SO much more pleasant without it. Get out of that article GP! It’s a miserable, stinking place to spend your time. And ultimately you lower yourself into the snake pit over and over again for nothing: no serious student of history will ever look to Misplaced Pages’s political articles for depth, breadth or veracity. And as for the general electorate, call me a cynic but I don’t think it's important any more that SP’s BLP should inform them with NPOV. They won't be even be reading it. We won’t ever see her run for VP again, let alone president – she did way too much damage the last time.

I fear your bridges would be viewed as nothing more than a content dispute (I think they're part of something more serious), so I don’t know where you could take them with any realistic chance of chalking one up for NPOV at SP.

All that said, I’m full of admiration for the fight you put up. I respect your diligence and your apparent integrity, as well as your powers of endurance.

Sorry not to be more helpful. Writegeist (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire. You have given me exactly the help I was looking for. Your beautiful comment has finally given me what I've been seeking: peace, validation and absolution.

The only question left is whether to put a POV-tag on it before I go, in honor of all of those there who believe that Palin's track star status is more important than her public policy choices.

I had been leaning toward it. But at the moment I'm leaning not, at least not by me, in order to get a clean break from the mental chains that cause me to go back and keep checking the Sarah Palin bio and decry its slow but determined slide from balanced article to Sarah Palin press release. I would welcome anyone else who wants to put such a tag up -- after all, the article is unbalanced and we're not allowed to modify it -- and it's not just the bridge section. People think I'm fixated on the bridges, but I always saw the bridges as a microcosm of the larger problem with the article. The idea was I would study one area of Palin and get to know all the sources backwards and forwards so there would be no question in my mind about the facts. That way I could argue with authority on at least one issue, while leaving most of the other issues largely to others. If I ever could past the "Bridge to Nowhere," I could then focus on other issues. But the Bridge led....with perfect irony...to (wait for it...yes it's coming...can't resist...) NOWHERE.

Writegeist, you worry you're not helpful. Happily, I believe you are wrong about that (as rare as that is!). In this small way, God has granted me the serenity to change the things I can, to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference. I know there is no way to implement wikipedia policies of NPOV and verifiability and scholarship and banning own research and assuming good faith and balance and truthfulness in this bio in the face of a determined group of hagiographers who refuse to engage in give and take or compromise. You're right. It is a "miserable, stinking place to spend time."

And you're right that Sarah Palin doesn't matter any more. When she was new to the scene, people flocked to wikipedia to find out about her. (I did too!) Now she's a national joke, thanks to her own ridiculous campaign interviews and the deft skewering by Tina Fey. If Sarah Palin ever starts to matter again, rest assured I'll be back and, if people who want a balanced bio aren't there, I will insist on formal arbitration on all my disputes, particularly if they're with the same people who control the article now.

But you're right, Writegeist. She doesn't matter anymore. And I have much better things to do than hit my head against a brick wall. Thank you from freeing from my mental chains. I have no obligation to ensure the SP bio is truthful or accurate or balanced. Let it return to the fetid swamp from which YoungTrig brought it forth from the very beginning.

Good-bye.GreekParadise (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Small note

As I feel the inevitable parting of ways approaching, I will leave you with these words that have inspired me throughout my journey. I hope that when you feel trapped, cornered and blindsided, that you can look upon them as a source of comfort and strength.

Into a soul absolutely free from thoughts and emotion, even the tiger finds no room to insert its fierce claws.

No thinking, no reflecting. Perfect emptiness; yet therein something moves, following its own course.

The eyes see it, but no hands can take hold of it -- The moon in the stream.

Victory is for the one, even before the combat, who has no thought of himself, abiding in the no-mind-ness of Great Origin.

--A Taoist Priest (circa ?) - Tao of Jeet Kune Do by Bruce Lee

I cut out some of the "tree falling in the woods" stuff, but I think that suffices. Good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)