This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
It seems to me that the article shouldn't say that every female candidate endorsed by Palin is a "mama grizzly" unless she specificly said so about that person. Isn't it possible that she could endorse someone for something other than the person's mama grizzlyhood? (p.s. The world-wide, and more scholarly, name for the animal is brown bear. Grizzly is the nickname for the more common North American subspecies.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you are referring to Carly Fiorina, whose endorsement was made prior to the unveiling of the "Mama grizzly" term. Adding her to the Mama grizzly list is not original research. See this reference which is already listed in the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The source used the expression "mama grizzly" but did not quote Palin as using it. I don't think the article should say something like: "Palin called her a mama grizzly." Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The reference lumped Carly Fiorina with all the other Mama grizzlies. Therefore, until a time comes that Palin comes out and says that Fiorina is just an endorsed candidate, but not a "Mama grizzly", it's legitimate to include Carly on the Mama grizzly list in this article. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I just think that "Palin endorsed Fiorina" plus "Palin said that women she endorsed are mama grizzlies" does not equal "Palin said Fiorina is a mama grizzly."Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to add a little background info (one sentence) on what a grizzly bear is. For one thing although Americans (and Canadians) know this, readers in India or Australia maybe do not. For another an encyclopedia does have an educational mission and if a person learns something reading an article (in this case about a species of bear) that's a good thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Palin-backed women candidates in 2010 section
I deleted the Palin-backed women candidates in 2010 section with its table of images. The text in that section -- "it is not known how many are considered "mama grizzlies" " says it all - no reliable source, BLP issues, etc. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
By what stretch is the statement "misleading"? The entire section is just original research based on the gender of the candidate Palin endorsed. There is no comprehensive list of "mama grizzlies" anywhere; it's just a concept Palin introduced of moms entering politics to protect their children. Since all the candidates listed obviously aren't moms, how can they all be considered "mama grizzlies"? --SchutteGod18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, do you have a source indicating that Palin said all women candidates she endorsed were "mama grizzlies", or are we going to continue to rely on meaningless speculation and original research? --SchutteGod (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As no reliable source has surfaced verifying all Palin-backed women candidates as mama grizzlies -- even those who don't have kids -- and per previous complaints about original research, I have restored the previous section title. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I found that this article was generally full of excessive, irrelevant detail and that in some cases, the text was not verified by the sources given. Perhaps this occurred because much of it was written in the heat of the election season, but no matter what the reason, the article needed a re-write. I am entering my changes paragraph by paragraph, so they can be readily seen. Most are pretty basic, and uncontroversial, but of course, I am assuming a certain level of good faith and reasonableness on the part of the other editors here.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)