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.
- I think it means that Joe Biden had more people respond "I don't know" to favorability polls than Sarah Palin. Thus, more people had an opinion that was either favorable or unfavorable towards Sarah Palin than they did towards Biden. However, the above quote is a bit unclear.184.186.1.47 (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Misleading category
Category:Converts to evangelical Christianity from Roman Catholicism: note -- this category is seriously debatable and, I believe, misleading; she was never a practicing Catholic, only baptized; is she an infant convert?? Quis separabit? 22:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- The category is not misleading but factual. In keeping with NPOV and need for inclusion of the eclectic situation, Wikipedia should categorize her for what actually happened, which is that she was christened Roman Catholic but later affiliated with evangelical Protestant congregations. Quis separabit?, if she had died the day after her Catholic christening, would she have been buried as anything other than a Catholic? No, she was clearly, concretely, demonstrably a Catholic, explicitly recorded in the church record. She later converted. Removing her from the category obscures a significant fact of her upbringing. Rammer (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- How can it be factual if Palin has never considered herself a Catholic or been raised or educated in that faith? Quis separabit? 06:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Until anyone can produce a source for any of those claims, i think we should remove the category. Correction, i am going to remove that category. Bonewah (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Seems that this article isnt in that category. Please be sure to site sources before adding it. Bonewah (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is a confusing thread since, as above, she is not in that category, now was she prior to the recent edits by the thread starter. Anyway, agree with keeping this out. The baby example above is wholly inapt. Conversion is by its nature an act of the sentient.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Seems that this article isnt in that category. Please be sure to site sources before adding it. Bonewah (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Until anyone can produce a source for any of those claims, i think we should remove the category. Correction, i am going to remove that category. Bonewah (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- How can it be factual if Palin has never considered herself a Catholic or been raised or educated in that faith? Quis separabit? 06:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
New NEWS today, for future editing
Obvious comparisons, contrasts and competition begins.
Headline-1: The first shot: Clinton vs. Palin
QUOTE: "Two days after Sarah Palin said she is considering a bid and held up a “Ready for Hillary” car magnet during her weekend address at an Iowa conservatives convention, the group took the bait and fired back, accusing Palin of signaling the beginning of a GOP anti-Clinton crusade." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
The 'See also' section
I'll be adding the 'See also' section, with one bullet item. Guidelines are that main items in the body of the article do not have a 'See also' entry. With this in mind, when her 2016 run for the presidency is dominant the 'See also' entry about her positioning can be removed. Feel free to add other 'See also' references to other pertinent WP pages not linked in the body of the article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, all I see is an offhand remark to a reporter being deemed a "news story", and hence being used to justify "evidence" of a candidacy where no other evidence exists. Hey, everyone, I declare myself to be a candidate for the Silly Party nomination for Archbishop of Canterbury. So, if I con a "reliable source" into publishing such a "fact", does that mean that I'm allowed to bludgeon Wikipedia with it and ignore all evidence to the contrary, or do those rules not apply because I'm not Sarah Palin? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I wonder how desperate some editors are going to be to avoid acknowledging the existence of that, to the point of making it appear that WashPo is all of a sudden not a reliable source because they ran a piece which isn't complimentary. Particularly relevant to the point I've been making are the following: "Still others expressed concern that the GOP is damaging its own prospects by treating Palin as though she is doing more than promoting herself and her various ventures" and "As for her presidential ambitions, Palin said she was merely answering a question lodged by a 'pesty reporter while I was promoting my Sportsman Channel show'". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Whatever Sarah Palin decides, she will be a positive factor in keeping the Conservative vote in the Republican Party. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Health care section
I'm wondering what's going on with the health care section. See [1] for one of at least 2 reverts in this section. The two "citation needed" tags just don't make sense to me. Are people really claiming that the "Affordable Healthcare act .." is not what Palin is referring to in the quote now linked to from Politico? Are they claiming that Palin isn't in favor of defunding Obamacare? In any case it's all in the reference that has been reverted.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with the "quote" from Politico is that it is highly selective about which words of Palin it takes from her response. If you read the text of what she really said, it shows how dubious the Politico selection is. I don't think anyone is saying Politico isn't a reliable source, but the way she is so selectively quoted in the section of the article under discussion renders it useless for an encyclopedic article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The full text of the interview is here. I see what you mean in that the topic is not just healthcare, but the rhetoric quoted seems par for the course. Perhaps you can rewrite the paragraph about her opposition to healthcare. Right now the paragraph just does not make sense. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought I was clear above. Copying the section with comments:
Health care
- Palin opposed the 2010 health care reform package, saying it would lead to rationing of health care by a bureaucracy, which she described using the term "death panels".
This legislation is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[citation needed] (Is this sentence needed? What does the citation needed refer to?)
Palin characterizes the act as an "unfunded mandate" and supports defunding it,[citation needed] as well as repealing portions of the act.[1] (Does anybody doubt that this is true? References are only needed where there is a reasonable doubt. What isn't covered in the ref given?)
Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Condon, Stephanie (March 22, 2010). "Palin: Health Care Vote a 'Clarion Call' to Action". Political Hotsheet. CBS News. Retrieved May 29, 2010.