Talk:United States congressional delegations from Alaska

Bogosity alert

Ernest Gruening was elected to the Senate on October 6, 1955 for the 84th Congress but did not take the oath of office and was not accorded senatorial privileges, Alaska not yet being admitted as a state.

First off, the election was in 1956 for the 85th Congress. Second, a whole delegation was elected, not just Gruening: this included Bill Egan and Ralph Rivers. Egan was a substitute for Bob Bartlett, who felt that he could better help the statehood cause by remaining in his position as delegate. Try Googling "Tennessee Plan" or "Alaska-Tennessee Plan" for more information. I have sources which are more detailed than what is normally found on the web, but most of that material is still sitting in storage. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Gonna have to take it up with the Congressional Historian, then: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=g000508 states, "elected to the United States Senate October 6, 1955, from the Territory of Alaska as an advocate of Alaska statehood but did not take the oath of office and was not accorded senatorial privileges". --Golbez (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I already figured out long ago that their information is thoroughly error-ridden, and by mirroring it on Wikipedia, they hope that us volunteers will come along and do all the work correcting it while they continue to sit back and get paid to do who knows what. I recently obtained a copy of Evangeline Atwood's biography of James Wickersham, published in 1979. The mass of contradictions between information found in that book and their information just made that all the more crystal clear.

Your response reveals a curious take on WP:OWN. Part of the reason why Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of multiple reliable sources is that individual sources often fail to get it right. I'm talking about factual accuracy here. Even though the community as a whole is extremely schizophrenic on that point, there are some of us who are concerned about such a thing. Crafting a bunch of pretty-looking content which reflects the agenda of one particular source to the exclusion of other sources (and in the case of a subject such as this, TONS of other sources exist) effectively constitutes an attempt at page ownership. The same thing is being done with articles on federal courts and judges, and for the same reason. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWN? All I literally did was say "The article matches the source, so it would have to be the source that's wrong" based on what appeared to be you saying "this is my interpretation of the date because I've given no sources and only used logic to figure it out." Because, based on what you said, it didn't appear you knew about the source, since you didn't mention it, nor did you offer competing sources. I don't see at all how that's an ownership issue. --Golbez (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)