# Talk:Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin

How is this relevant to the article? Chase was on the show 32 years ago; do his views on Palin's suitability as a vice-presidential candidate matter? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Nonpartisan Message from Governor Sarah Palin & Senator Hillary Clinton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the lead, this is just me, but this ---> "At the time of the broadcast, Governor Palin was the Republican Party Vice Presidential nominee", doesn't sound right, cause the elections are still going on, so "was" hasn't been determined yet. I know I'm wrong with this, but this is just me.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Response section, this is a question, why is "John McCain" linked instead of his "campaign"?
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
In the Response section, I know that ref. 17 does cover this ---> "When asked how she felt about Fey's portrayal, Sarah Palin replied, "I watched with the volume all the way down and I thought it was hilarious. . .I didn't hear a word she said, but the visual was spot on", right? If not, a source is needed.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
I think i've sorted all these points. Thanks for the review. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome on the review. Thank you to Jamie jca for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. BTW, Hilarious sketch. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw this on DYK and decided to read it since I missed it when it was on. After reading the article I felt like it never really explained what the sketch is actually about, it's touched on in the lead but after reading the article I felt like I knew why the did a Palin/Clinton skecth and how people felt about it but almost nothing about the sketch itself. I know the article shouldn't be a replacement for watching the sketch but I think a bit more context to support the commentary would be helpful to the article. Unfortunately I can't help since, as stated, I didn't see it, maybe there isn't much to say about the sketch itself but the article still leaves me feeling wanting for this information. Stardust8212 13:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - I'm still in the dark as to what actually happens.  Also - how, if all the journalists on Palin's plane watched it with the sound on, can she claim to have watched it with the sound off? Or was she just lying? Malick78 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this article really necessary? Isn't it, in the end, just another SNL skit? -R. fiend (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As if we need an episode by episode synopsis on every single episode out there. Compared to those, I think this is appropriate given it focuses on one segment with much hoopla rather than systematically dissect an episode of SNL.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
So is it the "hoopla" that sets it apart? I have never been a big fan of individual episode articles for TV (I had a very long discussion about this 4 years ago, before such articles were a fait accompli), but I prefer them to separate articles for each and very SNL skit ever made, which is where I fear we are heading with articles such as these. But if this is an really exceptional skit, then maybe it does warrant its own article. I'm just always suspicious whenever an article appears for the latest thing to appear on TV. -R. fiend (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt anyone would make a page for every sketch. I only created it because I thought it was notable with the response it was getting and with the election coming up (even if SNL do election sketchs all the time). -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This was rated as a good article. Why was it merged into Parodies of Sarah Palin? It now completely dominates that article. I see no discussion on either article's talk page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I have boldly restored the article. This will now be about ALL the Sarah Palin sketches. I do not see why this had to be redirected to an article which barely covered the subject matter at all. ViperSnake151 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be more about the later sketches, however. I believe an article on the Fey sketches is completely justified given their notability during the campaign and the fact they are already considered SNL classics along the lines of the Blues Brothers, etc. and I believe there are articles about notable SNL sketches of the past. If this article survives until next fall, there may be additional notability given as Fey is generally considered a shoo-in to win an Emmy for these performances. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed what I felt to be a wholly unnecessary "citation needed" tag from the reference to the Nov 1 skit re: QVC. Considering it is common knowledge that Barack Obama bought airtime on the major networks earlier in the week (widely discussed in the appropriate articles) and that the skit itself provides reference to the fact that this is discussed, is a citation really needed? Citations are used to verify information that may be disputed; there's no dispute regarding Obama's infomercial. 23skidoo (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph was completely unsourced, and "common knowledge" is an assumption and original research. I guess the existence and content of SNL sketches are all common knowledge too. Anyway, I added the reference needed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

note: this is cross-posted at Talk:Tina Fey#SNL Palin pictures
Any reason there are two different screenshots uploaded (File:SNL Palin Clinton.png and File:Fey Poehler as Palin Clinton.png) and used in different articles? Since these are not free, wouldn't it be better to only have one? That would make it easier to keep track of where it's used. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This information could be useful, but why is Palin singled out?  Are you keeping track of the parodies or sketches SNL does about other public figures?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.125.7 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 

"I can see Russia from my house!" - what was wrong with Palin's statement? Alaska is just 50 miles away from Chukotka peninsula (Russia). It can literally be said that that one can 'see' Russia from his house.  Jim Fitzgerald post 22:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"This is true. As Slate has pointed out, on a clear day, those on the Alaskan island of Little Diomede can see the Russian island of Big Diomede, located across the International Date Line some two and a half miles away. Given that Big Diomede has no permanent population, the amount of foreign policy experience one can gain from staring at it is debatable. But you can see Russian soil while standing in Alaska".

What's wrong with that statement is that Palin never lived on Little Diomedes, or anywhere near western Alaska. Her house was in Juneau, which is over 1200 miles from Russia, and you can't see Russia from Juneau any more than you can see it from St. Louis. (Yes, prior to Juneau, she lived in Wassila, a suburb of Anchorage, but that's still about 660 miles from Russia.)
Of course what Palin actually said was that you can see Russia from "land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska", not from her house. And that is true. But the point she was clarifying was the bit about "As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America", Alaskans can keep an eye on him because they're right next door. Fey's joke just collapsed Palin's ridiculous point and her correct but irrelevant clarification into a single sentence. Moreover, the point of the story was that Palin had foreign policy experience just by virtue of living in Alaska, which is even more ridiculous. There's a heavily-trafficked border crossing with Mexico on the other end of my state; does that give me experience with border control issues? --50.0.192.101 (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Last night's episode, hosted by Tina and Amy, included a sketch in which they portrayed Palin and Hillary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture, one of the most WP:NOTABLE and enduring points of the Palin/Couric sketch has become exactly what's stated here

In the sketch, Fey quoted near verbatim one of Palin's answers from the actual interview and mimed Palin's gestures.
...except that that's entirely unsupported in the article, decades on. This meme seems to go back to contemporary Obama-supporting media at the time, with The Nation concluding quotes from the sketch with "See, no real parody required... Palin's actual words are hilarious enough" despite not having given any of Palin's actual words. AI is even picking this up and using this article as a 'source' for the more common larger claims people mistakenly make on YouTube, Reddit, etc. that all or nearly all of the skit was lifted verbatim.
Now, it may be entirely true that a single part of a single answer was directly lifted. Our separate article on the Palin-Couric interviews does provide a cite for its own claim that Fey pushed writer Seth Meyers to use Palin's "opinion on the bank bailout". Problems are that the "cite" is a dead barely-viewed YouTube clip miscredited to Keith Olbermann despite actually being content from a rando poster. I'll be honest that the actual interview is too cringe-inducing to bother watching in its entirety but the bank bailout section of the video and its transcript don't seem to have anything even near verbatim that shows up in the sketch. 
Fey seems to have nailed the vibe but (a) I don't see anything that's actually verbatim or even 'near verbatim' (whatever that means in political satire, which is always supposed to hew fairly close to the actual material to have any accuracy/relevance) and (b), if I'm mistaken in that and there is such a section, this has blown up enough and stayed topical decades on that we should actually be extremely clear what it was and provide actual timestamps or clear sourcing for that point. — LlywelynII 19:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)