Talk:Who's Nailin' Paylin?

Include mention of how controversial or offensive this movie is to some people?

When it was suggested that the movie be mentioned on Sarah Palin's Wikipedia article page in the discussion area, perhaps as part of a subject about whether she has become an unwitting American sex symbol, a couple editors (Republicans or Palin staffers perhaps?) were incensed that anyone would even dare to mention the existence of the film on the Discussion page and the mere discussion about whether a mention of it should be included was quickly deleted. Thus, this movie is controversial and possibly very offensive to Palin supporters and certain other types of people. When a brief post in a discussion topic about how consistent the Sarah Palin article was with the policy of NPOV mentioned the existence of the movie (suggesting that the deletion of the mere discussion of the subject suggested that NPOV in the article was a joke) the post was quickly deleted and a threat of disciplinary action was issued. Should this incident and/or the immediate and visceral rejection of even the mere discussion of whether the movie should be mentioned in the Sarah Palin article be mentioned in the Nailin' Paylin article as evidence of just how offensive and controversial this movie may be? WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Perhaps if there is a reliable source to cite. . . . --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How would the aforementioned incident which took place on Wikipedia itself be mentioned? It seems like it might fit in as part of a section about attempts to conceal the movie's existence or about how news of the movie has been received. Although mentioning a "discussion" that occurred on another Wikipedia article's discussion page might be somewhat parasitical, the way the movie has been received might be relevant to an article about the movie. Could it be mentioned if an article from a reliable source hadn't been written about it? If the posts at the Sarah Palin discussion forum themselves were to be the basis of a reference, how would one go about citing that? WhipperSnapper (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless some news source discusses the wikipedia discussion, we can't talk about it in article space. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

it is suggested that this article be merged with "Sarah Palin" hahahhahahahha

Citations under question

The script Krypton posted is not how the actual DVD plays out.

I have the DVD and the sequence of events is all off. Why do you changes keep being reverted? —Davisjer (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ménage à trois

In the plot summary section, I read:

After some small talk, flirting, and a knock-knock joke, a ménage à trois scene ensues.

The term "ménage à trois scene" is confusing. A ménage à trois is a "relationship or domestic arrangement in which three people share a sexual relationship". (See the article ménage à trois) So, in theory, a "ménage à trois scene" can be two men and a women shopping for groceries, if these three people are maintaining an intimate relationship. On the other hand, for a ménage à trois, it is not even required that they have sex all three at the same time (even though this is possible). It can be a man or woman living with two sexual partners in the same household, where these two partners do not engage in sex with each other.

It is not only vague (what scene from the ménage à trois is depicted?), it is also unlikely that they show a scene where the three people involved are maintaining a relationship. The woman just met the two men!

I think the term ménage à trois was used by mistake, and that the scene actually depicted a threesome (sex between three people at once).

I am changing the text, without having seen the film. So if I am mistaken, please correct me. Johan Lont (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article for "ménage à trois" also indicates that it's sometimes used for threeway. Changing the term to "threesome" might be an improvement, though there really wasn't so much ambiguity to assume the scene depicted the female lead marrying one of the strangers and proposing a ménage à trois relationship. After all, a threesome can also refer to three people golfing. Perhaps "a threesome ensues" means that they flirted, and then played a threesome of golf? It's not explicitly stated that they had a sexual threesome, anymore than the previous text did. FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

References

What's the point of the "Reception" part?

Who honestly is watching this and thinking "Hmm...that actor is doing a terrible job. It's not realistic at all!"?

The people who are actually watching it are either watching it to get a few cheap laughs, or only have one hand on the keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.110 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Who's Nailin' Paylin?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://avnawards.avn.com/nominees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)