Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 65) (bot |
|||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|leading_zeros=0 |
||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|indexhere=yes}} |
||
==Changed alma mater to just University of Idaho== |
|||
I understand that she attended half a dozen schools, but typically one lists the school from which one receives a degree as one's alma mater. |
|||
[[User:Mister Tog|Mister Tog]] ([[User talk:Mister Tog|talk]]) 01:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I can see your point, but sources have often made a point of referring to her peripatetic education. I've reverted for now, and suggest we wait for comment from others. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Maybe I am mistaken, but I do not believe that most people would list various schools that they attended, but did not receive their degree from, as their "alma mater." Most people would list schools from where they received a degree of some kind. The usage of "alma mater" in this article is atypical, and as you admit, appears to be motivated by a desire to draw attention to the peculiarity of her education. Using a "special" definition of the concept of "alma mater" for this purpose does not seem to further a neutral point-of-view, especially considering that this information is adequately addressed in the text body. [[User:Mister Tog|Mister Tog]] ([[User talk:Mister Tog|talk]]) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not sure whether an educational path like Palin's would be seen as a negative or a positive - but either way, it is what it is. Anyway, best to wait for comment from others. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=="Bridge to Nowhere"== |
|||
There is a hidden comment in this section, saying that the section is disputed and shouldn't be edited. What is the dispute? If there isn't one, the comment should be removed. If there is one, discussion should remain here un-archived until it is resolved. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 16:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Nearly half of the archive is filled with this dispute. I'd suggest reading through it first, and if you then wish to reopen the dispute, feel free to start a new discussion here. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 18:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I have no desire to reopen it; I want to remove the hidden comment. Anyone editing this article automatically gets the warning template; there's no need for an extra caveat unless there's currently a specific dispute about the section. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 19:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::Personally, I have no objection. If no one else objects, then I'd say go for it. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 20:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Concur. Hey, Z! :) [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 01:24, 4 November 2013 (TC) |
|||
{{outdent}}I didn't take the time yet to pour through the archive. However, was the dispute really resolved? I can easily see the regulars here deciding that since those folks moved on from the argument a long time ago, now is a good time to just bury any references to it because it doesn't make the article look good. Since I'm a little more familiar with this issue than the average schmuck, I question whether this issue was resolved. Specifically, I still see in the article the same tired D.C. punditocracy spin of "We're spending a half billion dollars to reach 50 people" that I saw the corporate media incessantly push years ago. Even if it was in the form of the newspaper columns of Lew Williams, Jr. (read: not 100 percent neutral), the Ketchikan community made abundantly clear, years before this issue became a national political football, that they viewed the bridge as an "adapt or die" proposition. There is an abundance of flat land on Gravina Island which simply doesn't exist on Revillagigedo Island. Please don't respond to this by asking me for a citation because you're ignorant of the area's geography; go do your homework instead. If Ketchikan can use Gravina Island as an industrial area to provide services for what little timber industry still exists in Southeast Alaska, it at least stands a chance of having an economy that's not as dependant upon federal subsidies. This doesn't jibe very well with the outside stereotype of Alaska's economy, which was painted by this issue and others as having been dependant upon Ted Stevens, Don Young for its very existence.[[User:RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> RadioKAOS </span>]]/[[User talk:RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> Talk to me, Billy </span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> Transmissions </span>]] 11:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Much of the dispute had to do with an attempt to include the Knik Arm Bridge as also being "the bridge to nowhere." The attempt, I believe, was to showcase it as Palin's "pet project" to get a highway built straight to her house, which is ridiculous, because the Knik bridge has been in the planning stages since before we all were born. (I guess every bridge would be a "bridge to nowhere" until it's built. Only after you have a way to get there does it become "somewhere.") [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd be happy to put the comment back if anyone wants it there. I just don't think it should linger there indefinitely. Like I said, when one edits this article, the "article probation" warning template appears. To have a second admonition to not edit a section until disputes are resolved - especially when said disputes are long-archived - is contradictory to [[WP:BOLD]]. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 12:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree. If we end up with a mess we can just re-add the comment. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 15:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Single payer health care == |
== Single payer health care == |
Revision as of 00:48, 12 February 2014
![]() | Sarah Palin was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Single payer health care
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html
Notable WRT her stance on health care coverage? Hcobb (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- No. The bizarre geography of the area (and the fact that the Knik Arm Bridge, which would have provided a practical route to Anchorage, has not been built) is the only reason that she went to a Canadian hospital. Horologium (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
New TV show
Following her 'Alaska' TV show, she is signed to do a second TV show:
- www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sarah-palin-host-amazing-america-article-1.1542245
Headline: Sarah Palin takes another shot at reality TV with 'Amazing America'
Text: "The show will highlight the 'red, wild and blue' lifestyle of hunters, shooters and fisherman. The weekly program will air on the Sportsman Channel, which has so far ordered 12 episodes that will begin airing in April."
I'm a fan and will be watching! FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Could be better phrased:
"One month after McCain announced Palin as his running mate, she was viewed both more favorably and unfavorably among voters than her opponent, Delaware Senator Joe Biden."
By which I mean I have no idea what this means.
Death panels yet again. Polifact version
I dont feel that fact that Palin's 'death panel' comments were named as 'lie of the year' by polifact warrants inclusion in this article. Polifact is just another news org and their 'lie of the year' is nothing of particular note. I have reverted Jimmuldrew's change diff on that basis. Further, i dont think that this change diff is any better. It seems we have had this discussion many times before, and yet here we are again, with the same editor as before. Jim, i think if you want to add this change you should at least explain why you think the consensus view is wrong or has changed. Bonewah (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. This is all covered in great detail at the sub-article. The first edit was full of weasel words ("some believe" and such). The next edit (first diff above) is simply a reference to a non-notable op-ed piece. The last edit appears to be nothing more than the author expressing their own opinion, without giving any context, counterarguments, or attributing it to anybody. I think its best to leave this all in the sub-article, because a short summary here is all that's needed to attract interested people there, whereas a long summary full of personal opinions is more likely to discourage them. Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)