→Bar Brawl: Really? |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 65) (bot |
||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
By which I mean I have no idea what this means. |
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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=594823339&oldid=594734492 diff] on that basis. Further, i dont think that this change [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=594929994&oldid=594823339 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. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 00:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Jimmuldrow is topic-banned here, FYI. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimmuldrow&action=historysubmit&diff=423573481&oldid=420225634]. [[User:Hydriotaphia|Hydriotaphia]] ([[User talk:Hydriotaphia|talk]]) 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Alma Mater == |
|||
I propose that we list Palin's alma mater as the school from which she actually received a degree. This would conform to the commonly understood notion of "alma mater." Listing multiple schools, that she may have only attended briefly, is being done for the purpose of emphasizing an unfocused youth, which seems NPOV. |
|||
[[User:Mister Tog|Mister Tog]] ([[User talk:Mister Tog|talk]]) 23:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree - whoever put in all those schools obviously doesn't understand the definition of "alma mater". I've already fixed it to "University of Idaho". [[User:Ckruschke|Ckruschke]] ([[User talk:Ckruschke|talk]]) 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke |
|||
::It currently reads "University of Idaho, Moscow". That has to be a joke, right? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.156.136.147|75.156.136.147]] ([[User talk:75.156.136.147|talk]]) 15:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::No joke: [[Moscow, Idaho]]. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 15:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::The [[University of Idaho]] only has one campus. This infobox seems like a silly place to include that detail. I don't see it on Mark Felt's or Larry Craig's page.[[User:DavidRF|DavidRF]] ([[User talk:DavidRF|talk]]) 10:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== "Possible 2014 Senate campaign" == |
== "Possible 2014 Senate campaign" == |
Revision as of 00:47, 13 September 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
"Possible 2014 Senate campaign"
You know, this reminds me a little too much of Joe Miller's non-challenge of Don Young two years ago, or even better still, Levi's non-campaign for mayor. Speculation as reported by reliable sources is still speculation. Here's a scenario for you. Imagine if I were to get a newspaper photographer to take a photo of me wearing colorful clothes, a fez and dark glasses, with a manzello and other musical instruments strapped and hanging from my neck. When the photographer asks me for my name so that they may publish it along with the photo, I reply that my name is Rahsaan Roland Kirk. With the state of the newspaper business being what it is nowadays, that photographer's editor is too busy working as circulation manager to give much thought to his other job, letting it slip through. Now, because I can point to a reliable source stating that I'm Rahsaan Roland Kirk, does that make it so? This is the sort of regard you're showing for WP:V here. The filing deadline to appear on the ballot is less than two weeks away, yet the ONLY evidence whatsoever for asserting a "possible campaign" is the fact that some idle trash talk to Sean Hannity nearly a year ago was deemed news by CNN and The Washington Post. Cherry picking sources has long been a problem (e.g. whitewashing her association with the Alaskan Independence Party or with Wally Hickel), but this is far too blatant. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree in principle. One mention 10 months ago is not really enough to warrant the text that is devoted to this. Somewhat of the WP:Crystalball variety... Ckruschke (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
- She may have current plans in a Conservative direction but at a different level. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sarah Palin Channel
I'm all for, but then not because you have to pay for in order to use. Don't get me wrong I do understand, but then don't. In which I contracted them regarding all of this. Especially, I marked high priority. I mean with this being my copied and pasted intro to everything I do on online.
At the same time a little bit more as well. Regarding my biography.
Still I'm not one, but have no to little income. Is supplemented by Social Security Disability. In which I'm glad for, but still wish I had other means as well, but in I still don't. At the same time still don't drive or intend to anytime in the future.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing, Jessica. I notice you can glean a lot of information from the top of the website SarahPalinChannel but to have full details, you need to subscribe. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are some reports from what others are saying:
Headline-1: Sarah Palin’s New Venture: TV Subscriber Based Network
QUOTE: "...Palin is now the leader of The Sarah Palin Channel, at a fee of $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a one-year subscription, promising coverage and opinion on “important issues facing the nation,” as well as behind-the-scenes looks into her personal life as “mother, grandmother, wife and neighbor.” Ms. Palin will curate and moderate the content as executive editor. ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Headline-2: Sarah Palin Launches Online Video Channel
QUOTE: "The former Alaska governor will oversee all content posted to the subscription-based Sarah Palin Channel, which will be available through the TAPP platform." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Headline-3: Governor Sarah Palin Launches Online Video Channel On The TAPP Platform
QUOTE: "Los Angeles, July 27, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- TAPP co-founders Jeff Gaspin, former chairman of NBC Universal Television, and Jon Klein, former president of CNN/U.S., announce the official launch of the Sarah Palin Channel, a subscription-based online network offering supporters of the candidate for Vice President of the United States and former Alaska Governor unprecedented access to and interaction with Governor Palin." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Headline-4: Sarah Palin launches online subscription channel for a 'direct connection' with supporters
QUOTE: " Sarah Palin is starting her own subscription-based online network. The Sarah Palin Channel, which went live on Sunday, bills itself as a "direct connection" for the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate with her supporters, bypassing media filters. Palin says she oversees all content posted to the channel. This will include her own political commentary. Other features for subscribers include the ability to submit questions to Palin and participate with her in online video chats, she says in an online announcement. Membership is set at $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a year. Palin remains active elsewhere as a Fox News Channel contributor and reality-TV personality. The Sarah Palin Channel is part of the TAPP video platform, which launched earlier this year." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: US News and World Report is highly respected.
Bar Brawl
Are the recent reports of a Palin family bar/street/snowmobile brawl significant?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I read it, nobody is pressing charges, so maybe not. Also, reports are sketchy and may not be accurate, so at the least we should proceed with caution. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- The article is about Sarah, not another member of her family. HiLo48 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reportedly, Sarah was there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- So what? HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- You said this article is about Sarah, so I mentioned that she was directly involved in whatever this incident was. I never said she was the one throwing punches, just that her presence there makes this relevant to her (though I agree at this point that this does not belong in the article). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- So what? HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reportedly, Sarah was there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- The article is about Sarah, not another member of her family. HiLo48 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)