Talk:Bristol Palin/Archive 1

Drafts?
I was hoping to do a section or sub-section for Bristol or the controversy on Sarah Palin but I am not inclined to write this up starting from scratch. The stuff in history of this article is essentially useless, Anybody have any drafts? Anyone want to take a crack at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.177.202 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

own article?
Why is there no separate entry for BRISTOL Palin ???

Why are searches for her name redirected to her mother's page ???

BRISTOL Palin is major headline news.

I think BRISTOL Palin warrants a page of her own.

Or are we dealing with

Censorship in the USA? Censorship at Wikipedia?

Make a page if you want it....this is not locked Corpx (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of creating the page... probably needs some work. Aussie.power (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of redirecting it. People do not become notable for becoming pregnant. Bristol is notable only because of her mother- see the notability guidelines for people and our guidelines on people known for only one thing. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page following WP:BLP, since this topic has to do with the underage child of a notable person whose life and career has become a high traffic news item. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of the discussion, I am hereby inserting a repeat of some of the contributions on another "Bristol palin" talk page, that was closed due to the incorrect capitalization of the subjects name, after having been heavily vandalized by one certain Dlohcierekim:


 * This reeks of blunt manipulation. There is no doubt in my mind that Bristol Palin deserves a page of her own. Bristol Palin is now for lack of a better word a 'celebrity', if not an infamous 'rape victim'. A quick search / hit count on google, yahoo etc. will turn out hundreds, if not thousand of hits (e.g.: google: Results 1 - 10 of about 166,000 for bristol palin. (0.14 seconds)). This girl clearly deserves a pages of her own, indeed. Unfortunately wikipedia and its sister sites have now been hijacked by a couple (or rather a well organised army?) of right-wing spin doctors and their orwellian lieutenants. Compared to these people (and I am convinced Dlohcierekim is one of them indeed) Winston Smith and Dr. Goebbels were freakin amateurs... Or to say it in the rightwing Christian newspeak Bush/McCain stands for: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." Mijnlulinjouwkut (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NOT giving Bristol her own wikipedia page reeks of politicization of the forum and is a violation of NPOV. We are talking about a person who has been covered by more newsmedia than 90% of the subjects on wikipedia. Besides this, her life situation is directly relevant to the election in the United States, a non trivial entity. Denying that Bristol's own decisions have any bearing on her mother's candidacy is equivalent to denying that she is an independent actor with free will. This is insulting not only to her personal autonomy but is also a continuation by other means of policies which would rob her of that same free will and make her, as wikipedia is doing, a mere asterik in her mother's narrative. --Chakira (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

78.21.12.29 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If the subject in question has enough significant coverage from reliable sources, then why cant an article be created? We have pages on a lot of youtube celebrities. I fail to see what age has to do with anything here. I dont see any problems having an article if its well sourced from reliable sources. Corpx (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * She is notable for one, and only one thing. Getting pregnant. A small mention in her mother's article is all that is needed. BJ Talk 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Bjweeks. SQL Query me!  05:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point and I'd agree with you if she had kept a relatively low profile, but she and her fiance has been touring the campaign and have thrust themselves into the limelight. I'd guess that she's also going be covered by the media heavily till the elections and there is already plenty of significant coverage for a well sourced article. Corpx (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recommend drafting an article in your sandbox and then proposing here what you would like to post. Kelly  hi! 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat likely Bristol Palin will be a stand alone article, maybe even sooner rather than later, but as yet I tend to agree with BJWeeks and SQL: I don't think her notability is established. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with you, Gwen. I think the current problem is that there is little in the way of sourcing of biographical details outside the pregnancy right now. I'm sure that more information will eventually be published, an article will likely be appropriate then. Kelly  hi! 05:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to do this, but I feel like others who want to put in the effort should be able to do so. In addition to the pregnancy, she has also become a hot topic about teen marriage. Is Mary Cheney known for anything other than being the gay daughter of a VP? What about Barbara Pierce Bush? Corpx (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got a good point, those articles should probably not exist either, however, we're talking about Bristol Palin here, and, not those people. I strongly disagree that either pregnancy, or, young marriage makes one notable. Both of these happen relatively frequently in the US. SQL Query me!  06:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Along this line, Mary Cheney's autobiography was a flop, notable mostly for the big advance she got for writing it and Barbara Bush the younger is a Yalie. At least the two of them are daughters of sitting rulers, so I can be more or less neutral about each of them having a short article. Bristol got pregnant and so far her mum's but a candidate. It's not the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy giving automatic notability to wifes/kids of politicians in power. The bar should be whether or not the person passes WP:N, and I believe this girl does. Also, her mom is currently the sitting governor of Alaska. Corpx (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any articles about her which are not in fact more about her mother/her mother's campaign? All the pregnancy stuff is relating to her mother, not her. Has she done anything to become notable? J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to have a biographical article, there must be sufficient material to satisfy NPOV. Since Bristol has done nothing noteworthy in her own right, such an article is likely to be dominated by the pregnancy -- an incident noteworthy only for its potential impact on the campaign. Presenting readers with a salacious tale and some high-school trivia as the sum of a young woman's life would be to bring undue emphasis on her pregnancy.  Since NPOV violations, such as undue emphasis, are to be strictly avoided for biographies of living persons, I see no likelihood that a policy-conforming article can be written for at least several years.   In contrast, a short mention in an appropriate article keeps the incident in context, and does not present itself as a balanced presentation of Bristol's life.
 * For Bristol's role in the campaign to be notable enough to rate a biography, she would need to take a leadership role of some sort. I suppose it could happen, but I'm not holding my breath.  As for other articles that perhaps should not exist, that is what AfD is for.  Some of those articles were borderline cases that arise before we had section redirects.  Now, there is no need to have a separate article unless there is enough material to make a good one. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've yet to hear an argument for notability that doesn't point to the subject's mom. Therefore, the most reasonable place, for anything about the subject, is probably a short blurb in their mother's article -- if anywhere. SQL Query me!  18:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a full article would be easily deleted due to notability not being inherited. Well, maybe not... but in a perfect world that follows our notability guidelines in relation to people, it would be. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Small change
I think the redirect should point to Sarah Palin which is the correct section. I'd change it myself but alas, noone gave me such tools for that. So thanks for doing it for me ;-)  So Why  13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Been ✅ by the way :P SQL Query me!  18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * However there is no such section as Sarah Palin; it should be redirected to Sarah Palin. Not sure why Bristol Palin is protected - there was only one remotely quesionable edit! Nfitz (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, as non-controversial house-keeping. By the way, the page is already fully protected. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding the protection, since an article was also created at Bristol palin, the combined edits at both titles may have led to the protection of both. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The protection was made after I raised the issue on Talk:Sarah Palin then someone else raised it on the administrators' noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I recall I protected the page after seeing a suggestion to do so on AN. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no edits in the history of Bristol palin that would suggest any need to fully protect. To pre-emptively fully-protect a redirect page seems to be a violation of WP:FAITH. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you check the version that was deleted under criterion G10, attack page? —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The deleted version at Bristol palin could indeed be taken as a blatant attack page. I see no reason to unprotect the redirect at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very high profile page. The version in the history stood for around 20 minutes- it was probably seen by a large number of people. An unsourced sub-stub not conforming with the MoS is not what we want people to see when searching for a current political controversy. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only one's in the History that weren't redirects are and . While poorly written, neither is offensive. Nfitz (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the deletion log. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. However makes little sense to fully protect when it hasn't been necessary for Sarah Palin who is clearly much more likely to be attacked. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This and a number of other Sarah Palin redirects were fully protected to prevent unilateral, POV-hijacking from partisans on one side or the other. This has apparently already happened with some Palin-related redirect. Protection in these cases does not express some decision from on-high as to what articles we should or should not have. If a consensus forms among Wikipedia editors that we need a Bristol Palin article, then someone will flag an admin and get the redirect unprotected.


 * As a practical matter, we're better off having our Palin content concentrated in fewer, bigger articles than lots of smaller articles, given the 1000+ edits we're getting daily to Palin-related articles, many by partisans on one side or the other pushing their agenda or deleting useful, neutral text. It's easier to monitor bigger articles. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still don't see why this doesn't violate WP:FAITH. Though I also don't comprehend why Yanks seem to find the need to toss common sense out the window on any issue that touches there seemingly endless election. Can you simply just start banning anyone who starts using Wikipedia to further political causes rather than being neutral? Perhaps block the IP range of the entire country until November? :) Nfitz (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because in the circumstances, we have very good reasons to protect the page, and no reason to edit (except maybe changing the section name if it is changed in the article, or adding the category:protected redirects). We should have a discussion before creating an article. And as said above, it may be turned into a POV-push or whatever, and subject to pure vandalism as well, example. We have encountered such situations a number of times now, and it always lead to this kind of reactions. AGF is essentially a behavioral guideline, for interaction between people, and "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This page is an example, like high risk templates and so on. Too many risks and little, if not inexistent, advantages. Cena rium  Talk  01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pls fix redirect
editprotected The redirect is broken. Please fix redirect to be: Sarah Palin. --76.221.184.92 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ BJ Talk 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The relevant section in the Sarah Palin article has changed again. It is no longer Sarah Palin#Family or Sarah Palin#Background and family. The correct redirect should now be to Sarah Palin. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ A comment was also left in Sarah Palin advising of the link in. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

probation
This article space is under probation, see Talk:Sarah_Palin/Article_probation.

Please discuss any changes to this article (or to the redirect and the editing protection) at Talk:Sarah Palin. See also NOTINHERITED for some background. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That probation concerns behavior, not content. I don't see anything in it about indefinitely protecting redirects, or prohibiting the creation of articles. Notability is best determined by creating an article and then taking it to AFD if notability is questioned.   Will Beback    talk    18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Toss the probation and toss the protection. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Probation has been shown to be needed, but it's a separate issue from indefinite full page protection.   Will Beback    talk    01:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bristol is now notable in her own right
I say we ought to unprotect this redirect page, and allow editing of this article. Bristol's boyfriend, Levi Johnston, now has his own article, and now that Bristol has gone on a media blitz as part of her national campaign against teen pregnancy, it is time she got her own article. Dems on the move (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP1E, "media blitzes" don't establish long term notability. The Levi Johnston article will soon get deleted as well, as soon as his 15 minutes are up. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * if the Johnston article is deleted, a Bristol article should go up...she (and he as well) have now been in the spotlight for 8 months, and will likely be again in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Demur per WP:CRYSTAL we should not claim "future notability" if she does not have genuine current notability.  Collect (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See the thread at RPP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. If Mr. Johnston and Ms. Palin are now deemed notable, as many have made strong arguments for, they forever will be notable. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 17:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pic
Should we find one that is just of Bristol and doesn't show any minors? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with showing a minor? J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I thought the Sarah Palin editors had an opinion on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'll not touch that with a bargepole then! I admit a crop of the current picture would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Other options mostly have Levi I could keep going... jbolden1517Talk 18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * airport shot
 * convention shot
 * basketball shot (owned by Getty but we could ask if we could use it)
 * OSU (don't know copyright status)
 * beer shot I think this is totally unfair but it is a famous picture of here
 * A crop of the current image would be best. Free, shows her with the baby (the reason she's famous), shows her as she presents herself to the public. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * J, the baby in that picture is Trig not Trip. She's months away from giving birth at the time of this picture.  jbolden1517Talk  18:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Showed me. I think I'll leave this be now. No idea why it's on my watchlist... J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to show you up. Sorry if I came off that way. jbolden1517Talk 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced that the last photo is not Bristol Palin at all, but Mercede "Sadie" Johnston (Levi's younger sister). Bristol has never had blond hair, and even if she dyed it, the girl's face and eyes are noticeably different from Palin's in the last shot. 75.4.225.0 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the one in the Sarah Palin navigation box, at the bottom of the article? That's Sarah. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

highest profile
We should probably attribute that statement, since it's kinda self serving for the Candie's Foundation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget attributing it...we should just ax it...it's just someone's opinion, it's not objective and it might not even by true. Thoughts, anybody? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We are citing the source. Moreover how many people get hired for a job based on the level of publicity in their pregnancy?  Further the only other candidate I can think of is Jamie Lynn Spears and I think it is fairly hard to make a credible case that this is even close.  Look at where Bristol's has been discussed vs. Jamie Lynn's.  So:
 * I think it is true
 * I think it is a rather important fact about Bristol that this was high profile
 * I think we need at least a counter cite if we are going to just pull this.
 * jbolden1517Talk 00:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way. But it was misatributed (not said by the "Candies Foundation") and didn't make a lot of sense as written. I fixed earlier and attributed it. Again, don't really care, but as it stood it was both innacurate and unatributed (it needs at least the second thing to stay).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with your version. jbolden1517Talk  01:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool and thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think paraphrase would be better than quote Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
THere's some new user making this edit without summaries. Have no idea if its accurate, have reverted a few times since it's absent sources. Even if wrong it's not a BLP violation, just, well, would like sources about something the accuracy of which is unclear. I'm leaving it alone for now and hopefully the editor will explain.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That user has a history of those edits. Unless a source is provided, I wouldn't put any stock in it whatsoever. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Name
Her full name is Bristol Sheeran Marie Palin. Not only is it listed on Todd Palin's page, but was also published in the May 2009 issue of People Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cait g328 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Link here for those citations please?Bali ultimate (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the reference from the Todd Palin article; all it supports is a middle initial S. Todd's article has been changed accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked Peoples website; nothing supporting the middle names there. —C.Fred' (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And a Google search shows that the only hits for "Bristol Sheeran Marie Palin" are on MySpace. —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Go buy the magazine and then start doing your job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cait g328 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could narrow it down to a single issue (preferably a specific page), I'll run by the library tomorrow and verify it. "May 2009" is a range of four or five issues. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's consider this proposed edit roundly rejected until a specific citation is provided and will reevaluate then.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It actually appears in the June 1, 2009 edition on page 59 on lines 7 and 8. I was mistaken when I said May. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cait g328 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless we think they are lying, non-web sources are perfectly acceptable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this. It is published in the magazine article. I'm sure the highlights of the article are not yet online, as it is a recent publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmenez (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

prod
I removed the prod tag, this has sources on multiple events, the pregnancy and the abstinence advocate. Dont thin BLP1E applies here and there are enough sources about her and about what she has been involved in to merit an article. Nableezy (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, PROD shouldn't be used on articles that have already been at AfD.   Will Beback    talk    06:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Candie's Foundation
I think we should just point it at Candie's. That article doesn't have much, but it has some info, and I don't think anyone is going to be creating a great article on the foundation anytime soon, if ever. It would probably get merged into the main Candie's article, anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Candies Foundation affiliated with the shoe/fragrance company? If it is then a section in their article should be added, and link to that section in Ms Palin's article. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's funded by the shoe company. You'd need a source to add anything like this, but I've read (in reliable sources about Bristol, just not sure which ones) that they created the foundation because their ads are so scandalous that they wanted a counterbalance.  Why don't we just point it at Candie's, and if anyone creates it, it will be ready to go. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually did link it to Candie's a few weeks back, but this page is constantly edited, and a user (probably thought I was vandalizing) reverted it. As a matter of fact, Candie's DOES own the anti-teenpreggers nonprofit thing. 75.5.7.124 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was me. Wow, I forgot to log in. ★ Dasani ★ 02:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See :


 * 1) (cur) (prev) 19:26, 24 May 2009 Jbolden1517 (talk | contribs) (4,514 bytes) (Undid revision 292139503 by Dasani (talk), Bristol has nothing to do with the shoes) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (prev) 19:21, 24 May 2009 Dasani (talk | contribs) (4,523 bytes) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (prev) 14:50, 22 May 2009 Dasani (talk | contribs) (4,514 bytes) (undo) ★ Dasani ★ 02:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (cur) (prev) 14:50, 22 May 2009 Dasani (talk | contribs) (4,514 bytes) (undo) ★ Dasani ★ 02:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Candie's foundation accepts gifts. The shoe company does not. Which likely means (we would have to investigate) that the foundation is a separate financial entity. In particular it must have its own governing structure and file its own tax return. I doubt (though it is possible) that it is evn a wholly owned non-profit subsidiary; most likely the single relationship between the two is that the show company gives a lot of money to the foundation. This linking that people are doing strikes me as the height undue weight to the name. Candie's foundation needs its own page. You cannot treat bristol or other spokespeople actors/singers as if they had a legal relationship with the shoe company, they do not. This is classic WP:SYN, Bristol works for X, X gets money from Y therefore these is a connection between Bristol and Y.    jbolden1517Talk  11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The shoe company page has a section re the Foundation, which is to where this page is linked. Palin is listed there as a spokesperson for the foundation. There is no SYNTH involved. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A month too late, but I saw this while looking on Google. There's more proof from notable news organizations if you look around. ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 10:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Married teens
The discussion of "teen pregnancy" seems to ignore the fact that some teens are married, and that nobody argues that they should avoid having children. It is premarital, not teen, pregnancy that arouses condemnation. Unfree (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe personal opinion doesn't belong here???--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really wanted to know, this has nothing to do with Bristol Palin herself. And I believe each region has an age to BECOME married (ex. last time I checked, two fifteen year olds have no chance of walking down the aisle legally). Even then, people would think you're too young. Take it to teenage pregnancy. 75.4.225.0 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin template at the foot of the article
Not sure why Sarah Palin's template is at the foot of this article. Any comments? Centrepull (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Bristol is a link in Sarah's template, as she's a related subject. It is reasonable that people reading about Sarah would come to this article; the template allows them to move to other related articles directly instead of back through Sarah's article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with C.Fred. It does look strange though. I think the problem is that the primary template should be centred on the notability of the subject. Obviously we don't have articles about people who are only notable because they are related to someone notable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Fox News interview
This text was in the article:


 * Before becoming an abstinence spokeswoman Palin told Fox News that abstinence seems "not realistic at all" because of society's failure to accept it as a solution.

The problem is Fox has reused that URL; the interview located at that page is now an interview with Al Gore.

I see three questions which require discussion and/or some research:
 * 1) Is there a transcript or permanent link with the interview? That would eliminate consideration of the other elements. (I've not found one yet.)
 * 2) Can we still rely on the interview even though it's no longer online to verify? (My inclination is yes.)
 * 3) Should we make a deadlink-style comment after the URL? (Again, my thought is yes, to explain the situation.)

Rather than edit-war about the situation, I'd like to get discussion about it here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a transcript of the interview. Ω  pho  is  15:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at that transcript, I think the text can go back in citing the transcript. I started to wonder if "society's failure to accept it as a solution" should be changed, but Palin's response is vague about what is accepted (pre-marital sex? contraception?), so leaving the wording as-is may be best, to avoid introducing bias from our interpretation. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since another editor re-added the text referencing the video, I have commented out the citation of the video and referenced the transcript instead. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * C. Fred and Ωphois, thanks for doing this analysis and tracking down a working transcript. I'm sorry if my actions looked at all like edit-warring, but I'm very sensitive about WP:BLP violations.  Putting words into the mouths of public figures is unacceptable.
 * Looking at what Palin actually said, I just don't see how we can get "society's failure to accept it as a solution" without considerable WP:OR, so I likewise favor the simpler version, where we stick to what she said without injecting our own interepretations. While it would not violate WP:3RR for me to restore that text immediately, I'm going to hold off for now to give you time to respond. CarolineWH (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Would 'abstinence seems "not realistic at all" as an option for her generation' be reasonable wording to you? Or is that still synthesis, where should we just pare it back to end the sentence after "at all"—and leave the quote in the reference for the reader to consider it and make their own interpretation? —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's entirely unreasonable, since it may well be what she was trying to say. However, I'm not comfortable with this level of interpretation.  If the original quote is ambiguous or inarticulate, then it should stand on its own merits, allowing the reader the same opportunity to interpret it that we have.  So, yes, I think we should stop where the quote does. CarolineWH (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the text as indicated below:


 * Before becoming an abstinence spokeswoman Palin told Fox News that abstinence seems "not realistic at all . " because of society's failure to accept it as a solution. 

If anybody is strongly enough opposed to this change that the want to revert and re-open discussion, I have no objections. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto, although it might be better to re-open the discussion first, to get a consensus in support of reverting. Edit wars suck. CarolineWH (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything on the new consulting company?
Do we have any RSes on the new consulting company Bristol founded? I know that right now this is just a wrapper for her work with Candie's but it might be worth tracking to see future developments. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * lol, she really has a consulting company?--Milowent (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep the Palin's attorney confirmed it for Rachel Maddow (air date 1/4/10). There was some question when news leaked if this was really for Sarah Palin, i.e. for Bristol to run publicity for a 2012 campaign.  They are denying the broad purpose, which is entirely plausible, and not suspicious in and of itself at all since Bristol is getting multiple speaking gigs...  Come to think of it I guess that is an RS so the real question is, does anyone have an RS which is a convenient web link and if not how do we link to a television show?    jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I think I got sources let me know if there are any objections, including the TV show ____

I'm thinking of language like (refs inline for now ). Feel free to comment / revise.

''In 2010 Palin formed BSMP a lobbying, public relations, and political consulting service. (3 refs with original documentation from state of Alaska   ). While the initial focus will be working with Candie's foundation BSMP will expand more broadly for additional Bristol Palin customers. Early speculation that this is associated with a possible 2012 campaign for Sarah Palin has been plausibly denied '' jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That Rachel Maddow clip is pretty humorous, but the fact that Bristol filed papers to create an LLC seems like a legal formality more than anything else. Frankly, I think the whole idea that Bristol is an alleged abstinence spokeswoman is hilarious.  But if multiple sources are covering that work, its ok for inclusion i suppose.--Milowent (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the latest reversions. The company is BSMP not Bristol Sheeran Marie Palin. The name may stand for Bristol Sheeran Marie Palin but that is not its name. As for LLC generally we don't care whether a company is an LLC, s-corp or c-corp on wikipedia when we name companies. Most states requires business in the United States has a tax identifier at the end of its legal name, that doesn't change the legal name. So for example the legal name of my company is Blue Lotus SIDC LLC but no one calls it that, it is called Blue Lotus SIDC. The Huffington post is quoting the Maddow show, why not just go with the more reliable source? jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 12:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Plausibly denied
Plausible denial has a specific meaning. Stating that suggestions that this new venture has something to do with mom's 2012 campaign has been "plausibly denied" does not make sense. It doesn't really mean that the denial is believable, more believable than unbelievable, or "should be believed". The terminology is usually used to mean that a plan leaves room for the culpablity of the actors to be denied. Using it here is confusing at best. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence is poorly written. "Broadly expand to work with Bristol Palin clients"? Excuse me, but does this mean she is only going to be working on people in their cases, or people who come to her? I thought it was "more clients". At this point no one is sure what she intends to use BMSP as a vehicle for, but I thought it was strange, "Bristol Palin clients". ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not seeing why the aforementioned editor chose to revert to "plausible", either. ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dasani her attorney indicated she is using the LLC to collect payments from multiple sources. Likely speaking fees, residuals for advertising...  And yes now that she own BSMP, the people who employ BSMP are Bristol's clients.  jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are just Bristol's clients, why put "Bristol Palin clients" and not simply "more clients" or "her clients"? I would make this change but I want to see what you think first and to clarify. ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) maybe I'm being dense. I don't see how you want the sentence to read. Sorry for not following. Could you give me the whole sentence the way you would want it to read? jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is that it's pretty useless to put "Bristol Palin clients" if we put "more clients" or "her clients", that's good enough. The entire article is dedicated to Bristol Palin already. I don't know why someone would have to say, "Bristol Palin clients". ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yeah go ahead and make the change, I'm fine with subbing out with a pronoun. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 04:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC) --
 * Evb I'm happy for any phrasing that indicates it has been denied and good counter reasons have been offered. "Denied" alone doesn't accomplish that.  jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  21:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "credibly" denied? if it must be qualified. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * deal. Change made in article  jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead
The introduction was awkward, "Daughter of Todd Palin and Sarah Palin". I changed it to "Todd and Sarah Palin". If any person had ever saw this page, they would most definitely know about Sarah. If they did not know about Sarah, there is a photo, over thirty sources, and a huge infobox on the bottom to sort this out. Jamie Lynn Spears and Paris Hilton don't say "Daughter of ___ matriarch". ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 06:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Contiguous not Continental
SHouldn't it read she was planning to attend school in the contiguous US, not the continental. Alaska is on the same continent. (if that sentence warrants inclusion at all I'm not addessing here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.235.186 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I removed it - no reference, or particular relevance. Tvoz / talk 01:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

TV series
Is it really necessary to say what the show is about? Looking at much more famous celebrities such as Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, and Natalie Portman, so many stars have had guest appearances on a TV show. Their respective Wikipedia articles simply state they "appeared on ___" or "did ___ on ___", never explaining what the show is about. That's why we have separate pages and we would italicize and link to those articles (them being the ones the famous people appeared on). If anybody wants to know, they can click on the link and read the article of the TV show for further information. Yesterday I had attempted to reword this, then I looked around shortly after editing it and realized that not only was the new wording confusing, it was unnecessary.

I also added more to the infobox to bring it up to a better quality of a Wikipedia article. ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 22:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Pardon me? "It's not important what the show is about"? She (Bristol) would've not appeared on that show if it weren't for, guess what, what the show is about. So no, I can't follow your logic unless you can provide a more reasonable rational. And the caption was more accurate before your change as this article's focus is on Bristol Palin.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't enjoy the high moral tone. Well, since she's probably not going to be featured on TV ever again, and she was a preggo teen to appear on the show (which concides with why she's famous, versus the other figures), I guess it'll just have to be kept. I thought the caption was very, very wordy versus other celeb articles ("at the ___ (2008)"), but okay. ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies for the perceived "high moral tone". It wasn't meant like that.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

← I have to agree with MagnificentCK here - the subject matter of the series is exactly why she was on it, and including those few words makes that clear. Tvoz / talk 02:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Engagement
Bristol is now engaged to Levi Johnston (again). Although few sources are reporting it now, AOL and USA Today have just reported it and more will be expected soon. I will refrain from editing the article for now, but I expect it will be able to be updated fairly soon. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been done. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Drinking on Teen Preggo Day
To be honest, why is the bit about Bristol being seen in the club important? We know nothing of their leisurely lives. Perhaps McCain and her mother drank, too, or her brother does it quite often. Levi seems like a likely candidate. So many celebrities drink and party that it's difficult to name one that doesn't. The only notable fact about this remains that she was 19 years old, while the minimum expected age to be in an American club is 21. Removed that tidbit. 75.5.13.199 (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as she wasn't drinking while she was pregnant, there's nothing particularly notable about it. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it has been removed. I don't see it anywhere. Whitestorm13 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ben Barber
I saw some addition of Bristol formerly dating Ben Barber was deleted. Not sure its the sort of thing that needs to be in the article, but figured I would note here. The gossip story, at least, is that Bristol was "living" with Barber until very shortly before she got back together with Levi, and now Barber is working on the North Slope (considered a good job). Like everything surrounding SP, we need to think before adding it.--Milowent (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I really do not think this is true. I think everybody would have heard about it, if it was true. Whitestorm13 (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The engagement is off...again
http://www.ktva.com/oldlocal/ci_15669059?source=rss

158.145.224.33 (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tripp's birthday
An anonymous IP (or several) continuously feel the impulse to add that Bristol and Levi's child was born on December 27, 2008. Why is his birth month and day so important? We already know that his uncle was born earlier in the year. If you're going to add his entire birthday, we might as well do the same for Bristol's parents and siblings. ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 20:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because it goes to the issue of how old Bristol and Levi were when they had sex. It's a crime to have sex under age 18.  Both Bristol and Levi were under 18 at the time...and yet neither person has been charged. --Captain Quirk (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Charged with what? The age of consent in Alaska is 16. —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing as well. Whitestorm13 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Baby Brother - August?
On her page, under her picture, caption says "Bristol holding baby brother, August." Her baby brother's name is Trig, and her baby is named Tripp. So, why does it say August? I don't know where that came from, but it needs to be fixed. Whitestorm13 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It said "2008" under that - "Bristol Palin holding baby brother, August 2008". But I added "Trig" so that confusion could be minimized.  Tvoz / talk 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. I completely misread that, but thanks for clearing that up anyways. :) Also, I was wondering why you removed my edit about her going far in Dancing With the Stars? I just wanted to point out that America has proven that they liked her, by giving her so many votes, even though she was barely famous before Dancing With the Stars. I was wondering, because I really think it should be there. Kind Regards, Whitestorm13 (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

photo
The that has been inserted into the infobox seems to be just an extreme blowup/closeup of another shot - and the resolution is very bad. I think we should stick with the, of Palin holding her brother at the convention, until we find something better. The closeup is fuzzy and a poor shot for an encyclopedia article. Anyone else? Tvoz / talk 20:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection
Why is the article semi protected for six months? I have not seen enough recent vandalism to justify semi protection for such a long period. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? There were at least six or seven instances of vandalism and BLP violations just today. If things calm down, the length of time can always be re-evaluated. Meanwhile, this gives editors some breathing room to do more important things than removing nasty vandalism here. Tvoz / talk 07:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!. In that same time period there were two edits by unregistered users that were good contributions to the article: here and here. Also, the "six or seven instances" were made by 3 unregistered users. I therefore don't think there is much of a need for semi-protection of the article, and 6 months of semi protection is over the top. This is only the first time that the article has been semi-protected since it was opened to unregistered editors, so 6 months on the first time is completely out of line with normal practice. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I say hold off until after the DWTS final then re-evaluate. There's no question it's a vandalism magnet while this competition is going on. Kelly  hi! 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would reducing the duration from 6 months to 1 month cover the above mentioned time period? Victor Victoria (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict before Kelly/VV comments] Well, I'm not going to argue about whether that edit you cite (it was really one edit and a self-correction) was a good contribution or not, but no one is stopping IPs from making edit suggestions here on Talk which will be added to the article if they're improvements - a process in place in many BLPs and other articles. I am more concerned about comments added to the text of the article like "She is a horrible dancer, even for unexperienced eyes. Bristol Palin should have been voted off weeks ago." or "people think she's a whore" or referring to Johnston as a  "vile lizard human" or this one asserting once again that Trig is her son not brother, which was done after the hidden tag was added by you in a good attempt to stop such repeated BLP violations. The article has been vandalized many times, and given the high profile she has right now due to the DWTS gig, I believe semi-protection is called for, and that's why I requested it.  Six months was a judgment call on the part of the admin who added the protection, and as I said, the length of time can always be adjusted down the road if she moves out of the high profile she has at the moment.  Yesterday alone this article had over 30,000 views, and it's not acceptable for any portion of those people to see incorrect, offensive, or potentially libelous material in this encyclopedia.  Your mileage may vary, but I have zero tolerance for this, even when it is reverted fairly quickly (which is not always the case).  So I think we let her public profile return to a more normal level, and hope this problem goes away. I don't see a downside. Tvoz / talk 18:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

← More succinctly: I think waiting for DWTS to end is the way to go, and see what that brings in terms of the potential for vandalism and evaluate then. There's no need to change the time period now. Tvoz / talk 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the article protection and since, as Tvoz points out, the Talk page is also going to be used for suggestions by IP editors, I have shortened the archive time here from 90 to 30 days. Such editing suggestions can be lengthy especially when IP editors begin proposing specific language, and even new paragraphs. In other words, as long as we are anticipating vandalism and controversy for a lengthy period of time, then we might as well anticipate lengthy commentary here. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Palin's Alaska
Why is a citation needed that she appeared on the show? The show is the citation. Also, what is the opposition to saying that it is her mother's show? Victor Victoria (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you've got the episode information handy, you should be able to use Cite episode. Alternatively you could use media reviews of the episode. I think it's airing on Sunday so should only be a few days before there are some sources to cite. Kelly  hi! 07:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Victor Victoria, I have no idea what you mean by "the show is the citation" - really. We need an article or such that says that Bristol appears on the show - the title of the show doesn't serve as evidence of who appears on it. As for id'ing Sarah as her mother again, don't you think it's a bit redundant already?  I think we've established that Sarah is her mother, numerous times in the article.  Back to citation - if Bristol is going to be on the show this Sunday,  presumably there will be articles to cite and this conversation will be moot.  But  this line technically should be sourced to something - right now it's just an unsourced assertion that can't be verified, and that's against policy.    This should be cleared up in a few days anyway. Tvoz / talk 08:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Bristol appeared in the 1st episode, but I guess she didn't. So far IMDB does not have her listed as having been on the cast of Sarah Palin's Alaska show. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I believe she only appeared in the title sequence of the first episode, but she has a prominent part in the second episode airing 21 Nov. Kelly  hi! 22:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I found an advance review and added as a reference. Probably there will be some better ones after the episode airs. Kelly  hi! 01:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead too short
According to WP:Lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies" . The lead as it is, is clearly too short and needs more detail. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Malin and Republican core beliefs
It currently reads"When Sarah Palin was chosen as John McCain's vice presidential running mate, in late August 2008, his advisers already knew of Bristol's pregnancy, which they believed would be a political liability .... Speaking about Palin's pregnancy, political commentator Michelle Malkin said, "One ticket sees this as a blessing. The other sees it as a curse. Could the core differences between the two be any starker?"[16]"

Ok, so McCain's advisers thought Bristol's pregnancy would be a political liability -- then Malkin is quoted as saying "One ticket sees this as a blessing. The other sees it as a curse." This is very confusing, and could easily be interpreted as saying that Bristol's pregnancy was a blessing to Democrats, especially since this article later says that McCain's advisers thought it was a liability and later thought that if Bristol got married, it would boost McCain's waning popularity. However, Malkin likely meant her blessing-curse statement as a pro-life declaration of philosophical differences between the parties since she mentions "core differences". So Malkin meant the opposite - that Republicans believe all babies are a blessing and Democrats think they are a curse. Malkin's musings in and of themselves do have a grain of truth, but they are greatly exaggerated, and they confuse the meaning of the other sourced statements that are in the article. In addition, what Malkin personally thinks about Democrat or Republican core beliefs is irrelevant to this bio of Bristol who is not even a politician. Finally, Malkin's opinion here is so oversimplified that also misrepresents Republicans' as holding a core belief blessing premarital teen sex and single parenthood. Therefore, I am removing Malkin's opinion about Party core beliefs, and here is the diff -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Britanny's sister's burp cloths
Here is a passage that needs to be removed: "Several days later, it was reported that Britney Spears's sister, teen mother Jamie Lynn Spears, had sent her burp cloths as a gift.[17][18] Comparisons between the two cases were made.[19][20][21]"

First, it is not even an apt comparison. The famous relatives in question had different professions. One was a celebrity singer-dancer-entertainer, the other a politician and officeholder. Britanny was not seen as responsible for her sister's upbringing, (at least not by any reasonable person); whereas some critics could fault Bristol's mother, Sarah. Not only is the comparison illogical but baby gifts received are perhaps as trivial as trivia can be in a bio, which is supposed to be a summary of a notable person's life store. Here is the diff of the change I made. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

College Education
Did she not attend college anywhere? I assumed she did, but it is nowhere on her article. 75.221.76.166 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't based on assumptions. If you have a reliable source, that would help. Lngt1124 (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does say "That month, Palin and her son began living in a condo she had purchased in Anchorage, where she was working at a dermatologist's office and taking business courses at a community college.[22][23]" Since she did not complete a degree, this probably does not deserve a section of its own. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Election 2010
There is an editor who thinks that Palin's failure to turn in her absentee ballot fails some sort of a "so what" test because her mother was not on the ballot. Although the mother was not on the ballot, her mother was still very active in the election. I don't mind removing this sentence, so long that its removal does not give ground to removing the entire story about the lack of voting due to rehearsals. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the absentee ballot trivia thing will eventually drop out to WP:RECENTISM but I don't have any objection to leaving it there for now to see if it passes the test of time. I don't think it's right to try to tie her mother into the paragraph, though - seems to me to be some kind of synthesis. Kelly  hi! 18:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you regarding the WP:RECENTISM if she had not blamed the DWTS show. Since she did, it becomes part of the story of her appearing on the show. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Victor Victoria, your complaint at the start of this section is very odd. You added back the bit about Bristol not sending in her absentee ballot, and I left it in! I did however, edit it, so that it was not phased as if she committed a crime or tort. I thought that was a good compromise. In other words, you really don't have anything to complain about here unless you want to insist on using the phrases "admitted to" and "neglecting to" to refer to the fact that simply forgot to send in her ballot.-Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KS, the 2nd edit you made still had the sentence referring to Sarah Palin. The purpose of this discussion is to make sure you do not make a 3rd edit and remove the passage because it does not meet your "so what" criteria. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's recap: I compromise by leaving in material about Bristol not voting that you had put back in, and you complain about that here - after it is already apparent from my edits that I was leaving the material in the article, but rephasing for NPOV. You are now complaining about the fact that I did not remove material referring to Sarah Palin's involvement in the election that you had re-added. It is certainly beginning to seem that the purpose of your discussion is not article improvement.-Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

citations for User:Kelly's recent By whom tagging
edit semi-protected 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Still requesting this modification. The template added by asks "who believes this?" The answer is "almost everyone, including Bristol Palin." The correct way to indicate that inline would be the phrase "widely seen as", sourced to the three references provided above. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, those sources conflict on whether Bristol danced to the Three Dog Night or Randy Newman version of the song. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I was referring to an inline attribution (i.e. "seen by John Smith as a humorous reference"). I'm not seeing that an opinion by entertainment writer Joyce Lee would be particularly notable. Kelly  hi! 23:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm changing the text to "widely seen as", which is undeniable-- in addition to Joyce Lee, it was seen as a reference to her mother by The Daily Beast (ref 2) and Bristol Palin herself (by way of The Daily Mail, ref 3). 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the CBS News article at the end of the sentence directly references the mother. No need for additional references. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear - the policy I'm talking about is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I mean attribute in the inline text, not with a footnote. A good example of this is in the second graf of the "Abstinence spokesperson" section. Kelly  hi! 01:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV doesn't apply because of the words "seen as". If those two words were absent, then I would have agreed with you that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Administrators' noticeboard BLP review

 * Please see the AN/I discussion for more information.

The Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be considered excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons content policy. , and any other involved parties are put on notice that, in the event of reinserting content describing this event, they may be banned on sight from editing articles related to the Palin family (Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and any other future articles) under the terms of the existing article probation; any uninvolved editor may remove the inserted content. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, that is a fair result. KeptSouth (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I am extremely disappointed by this decision, I am not surprised.
 * First off, I'd like to compliment User:NicholasTurnbull for having the will to step into this dispute. This was undoubtedly a tough issue, as evidenced by the fact that it took a while for an administrator to step in (although the fact that it is currently a holiday in the US may be a factor in that, as the admin who ruled on this is from England).
 * In my opinion the arguments presented against inclusion, WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPN, are arguments that should be used against creation of or keeping of an article that should not have been created. Those arguments should not be used in the inclusion of well referenced facts in articles in which the material is relevant.
 * The decision is therefore flawed because
 * Bristol is relevant to the case because she issued the apology on behalf of Willow
 * The matter is well referenced in WP:secondary sources; hence, WP:BLP is not an in issue.
 * I'm not surprised by this decision because the culture here is one of exclusion rather than inclusion, especially when it comes to BLP. While I believe in looking at the policies and making a correct decision based on the policies, the culture here is to "err on the side of exclusion".
 * Although Wikipedia does have the equivalent of a Court of Appeals (in the name of the WP:ArbCom) and the equivalent of a Supreme Court (in the name of User:Jimbo Wales), the likelihood of them reversing this decision is low, given the culture as discussed in the paragraph above, and the lack of desire to WP:Wheel War.
 * Therefore, unless (or shall I say until) Bristol publicly comments about Willow again, this matter is for all practical purposes closed.
 * Victor Victoria (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

does it really need to say this?
"where she was unexpectedly one of the final three contestants"

i mean really? unexpectedly should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.153.15 (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that term doesn't need to be in the intro, though I think it's OK in the body. Kelly  hi! 06:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the intro is supposed to be a summary of the article, and the "unexpectedly" is what has been stressed in most coverage, including by Bristol herself, so it seems apt for the intro. Her surviving to the finals was certainly unexpected, and I think that's what we'll see in the post mortems and what the long-term take-away will be. But we can wait until better sources emerge and see if they are making the point.  As an aside, overall I think we rely too heavily on People magazine and the like in this article - not the best sourcing. So I hope we can shore this whole article up with some more substance. Tvoz / talk 06:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with most of the above - the closest analogue to Palin in DWTS is probably Kelly Osbourne, whose article doesn't use language like "unexpectedly". Certainly her success wasn't unexpected by the people who voted for her week after week, though maybe it was by "experts". Yeah, let's see what the sources have to say. Kelly  hi! 07:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that "unexpectedly" by itself can be a POV term, but there is probably a better and more objective way of expressing the same idea. I don't think we have to wait for sources "to emerge" as Tvoz says, and I do not understand why People magazine would be a RS for some items of information, but not for others. Is it a RS if is says something positive, but not a RS for something that is arguably negative? Either it is a RS for this article or it is not. Otherwise, we are simply cherry picking sources as well as facts. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw this - I think sources like People magazine are being relied on too heavily in this article across the board - I was not saying it's ok for positive things and not for negative. I think we are using People too much for everything - it is on a continuum of gossip/celebrity magazines, and barely makes it as a reliable source in my opinion.  If Bristol Palin is notable enough to merit an article here on her own - and I think she is on the weak side, but does squeak in mainly as a result of DWTS coverage - then we should be striving for  more diversity, and higher quality sources for all of it.  Her interviews with People, etc are not third-party verification of facts, or critical analysis, or scholarly treatment- they are an outlet for her to present herself.  I might not eliminate all of those references, but I surely would like to see a broader, and less subjective, range of sourcing here beyond what we have for DWTS.  Tvoz / talk 20:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: If Bristol Palin is notable enough to merit an article here on her own - and I think she is on the weak side, but does squeak in mainly as a result of DWTS coverage . The article was nominated for deletion last year with the result being a WP:Speedy Keep — a whole 9 months before DWTS.
 * Unless referenced, I agree that the word 'unexpectedly' could be dropped (which seems like that was the case). Victor Victoria (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, VV, I'm quite aware of the result of the delete nominations - doesn't mean I particularly agreed with the decisions at the time. As for "unexpectedly", we've already been around that horn above. (But note the title of fn 53 - it was referenced.) My point about over reliance on People mag still stands. Tvoz / talk 03:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

requesting protected article edit to satisfy whom tag and expand referenced sources

 * Yes check.svg Done. Model display of how to format an editprotected request ;) Thanks. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mama Told Me Not to Come
The song Mama Told Me Not to Come was written by Randy Newman. Three Dog Night only did a cover of it. This needs to be fixed in the article. Lngt1124 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Victor Victoria for fixing it! Lngt1124 (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The given source says Three Dog Night. Kelly  hi! 03:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad this reference to a trivial event - her debut dance which lasted all of 1 minute 40 seconds - which wound up being even more irrelevant due to the fact that she was on 10 shows after that - has been settled by its removal from the article. Having it in the article adding nothing in term of meaningful content, and it created a lot of disputes due to poor sourcing and extremely brief descriptions by the media.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion of son's birthdate per WP:BLP
has repeatedly added details about the birthdate of Bristol Palin's son. WP:BLP (otherwise known as WP:DOB) is clear about this - "...where the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Bristol Palin herself may be slightly above the notability line, her son is not notable at all. Removing per the BLP policy. Kelly hi! 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * Bristol Palin is now clearly notable
 * I agree that we don't need the date. If you want information about him, create an article for him.  If not, just leave it out   Pur ple  back pack 89    22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Kelly - I have been too busy cleaning up other stuff here and didn't focus on this, or I  would have removed the specific date myself. I would not have a real problem with "late in 2008", but don't know that it's actually needed.  And please do not even think of creating a separate article for this baby - he is in no way notable, and it is utterly inappropriate. (And as I've said, Bristol herself squeaks in, but is certainly marginal.) Tvoz / talk 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Kelly is correct. There is no encyclopedic value to permanently recording the birthdate of a nonpublic figure (the baby). Regarding the edits: it is inappropriate to debate the issue via edit summaries, particularly for an article on probation, and particularly when the editor was recently notified that edits regarding another point in this article were considered a BLP violation by consensus at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's have some common sense here. When google immediately tells you the exact date (e.g., ), this birthdate is far better known than those of 95% of all BLPs.  Putting the month seems appropriate in this case, because Bristol is highly notable.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  23:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow - why does Bristol's being "highly notable" (debatable, but ok) mean that we should put the month of her son's birth? I don't really object to the month, but I don't follow the logic. Tvoz / talk 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Kelly is correct. Whether Bristol is notable or not is not the issue. Bristol clearly is notable, but that is irrelevant.  The discussion is about the birthdate of the baby.  The baby is not a notable figure.  Generally, in most articles in Wikipedia all references to the birth dates of children is omitted.  Leaving the year is well beyond the normal practice.  Also, considering that the child is a mere baby without the ability to object, it makes no sense to unnecessarily publish the child's personal information--in light of the facts that: (1) the month adds nothing to the Bristol story, (2) the child is too young to object, (3) the article is not about the child per se, and (4) adding that information goes against normal editor practice.--Corbridge (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong objection to leaving it as just the year if that's how we uniformly do it. I know there are cases where that rule isn't followed, e.g., 19 Kids and Counting, Kate Plus 8, but I don't pay much attention to this issue.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  03:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - Bristol Palin on DWTS
New Facebook post directly addressing criticisms. Any ideas on how to incorporate? Kelly hi! 05:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I think it was wise for Bristol to address Margaret Cho's comments, and that she did an almost professional job of rebutting them, I don't think RS media coverage has been wide enough to include any of this material in Bristol's WP bio. I did enjoy reading Bristol's exceedingly well written facebook post, it is rather sad to see that she thinks large numbers people actually and truly hate her. Even the Alaska Dispatch doesn't think so. Who really 'hates' the Palins anyway?-Best regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

dancing with the stars
The introduction said she made it to the finals despite low scores.

I know 80% of the world hates the Palins...you betcha. But scores do not determine advancement in that game show. It is a combination of votes and scores. So no nasty commentary in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.23.136 (talk) 8:58 pm, 17 November 2010, Wednesday (18 days ago) (UTC−6)

I think it's ridiculous that how she placed in a television program is in the introduction. Please remove it from the introduction and leave that portion to the section dedicated to it, it doesn't need to be there. (Mention that she was on the show is fine, but to go into finer details isn't necessary in that part of the article.) Locke2558 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Willow mentioned
Willow is mentioned at the end, apparently making a homophobic slur on facebook. Willow is a minor and should not be included in this, as she is also not a public figure in any way other than being the daughter of a politician / public figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.25.159 (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and will remove the reference to Willow. Thanks for pointing this out. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Willow's facebook posting was public, mentioned in the media, and addressed by Bristol, the subject of this article, when the latter apologized. I have already reworded to make Willow's posting more appropriate for inclusion in an article about Bristol, so there is no need to completely remove. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that Willow's name is already included in the article in the Infobox at the top of the article, as a relative of Bristol. Therefore, saying that just because Willow is a minor means her name should not be included in the article is ridiculous. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know Wikipedia is not censored and all, but I'm wondering if instead of the direct quotes, we can say something along the lines of "she used foul language" or something like that. Any objections to me rewording along those lines? Kelly  hi! 21:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The word Willow used was "faggot" (see reference). So long as you preserve the fact that it was "foul language" against LGBT people, I would not object. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh - actually I was talking about quotes from Bristol using the word "shit". Kelly  hi! 22:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should have made that explicit, since both Willow and Bristol used "foul language" (I assumed you meant Willow, since this thread is about Willow). I don't mind removing the word "shit" from the article. Since the quotes are in the references, any reader who cares what words she chose to use can click on the link. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do see the point made above - why would a comment by Willow Palin be relevant to an article about Bristol Palin? Kelly hi! 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is "because Bristol apologized on behalf of Willow for that comment". Victor Victoria (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the information for now and requested input at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Kelly  hi! 23:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I put it back in, as the discussion there reached a consensus that there are no BLP issues with this sentence. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there's no consensus, it's a brand-new discussion. I'd request that you voluntarily remove the material now per WP:BLP while the discussion is still ongoing. I'll make further comments at WP:BLPN to keep from forking the discussion. Kelly  hi! 04:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not seeing any consensus against inclusion, I have temporarily commented out Willow's name. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Kelly  hi! 05:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

edit semi-protected
 * Requesting that the above-referenced material be un-commented (ie restored). There are no BLP issues with accurately accounting uncontested facts, and there's no WP policy that precludes mentioning the notable actions of minors. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are not policies about all sorts of things, but fortunately we are allowed to use commonsense: there is no encyclopedic value in recording all the gossipy details. Sure, some readers might like to see the name, and to learn what her favorite color is, and other stuff. But we only include information that actually has encyclopedic value. In fact, I would recast the whole paragraph to say that the subject ranted on Facebook when reacting to criticisms of her family, and later issued an apology. There is no reason for an editor to select certain statements made by the subject (the actual rants) and insert them into an article. The fact that a rant occurred is (just) worth mentioning; the details are for gossip columns. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -Atmoz (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

<--[outdent] I think we have to go back to the beginning of this thread where Victor Victoria reverted my changes, lengthening the passage and restoring unsourced quotes of swears and other comments Bristol allegedly made on someone else's Facebook, and restoring a coatracking mention of Willow. Victor Victoria gave a diff above, but it was not the diff of the change that he or she made. Here is diff of the revert that was done:

Or better yet, I will make it completely clear in a short chart:

Victor Victoria restored the undue emphasis, and non neutral point of view, and material that is simply not notable. This is all in violation of the BLP policies I have discussed and more. Mentioning Willow is coatracking, pure and simple. The consensus on the BLP notice board and here is that much of this is not worth mentioning at all. Last but not least, the actual quotes are unsourced. Per WP:BLP, contentious, unsourced material should be removed immediately. I am again introducing my edits which provide some neutrality. The burden is on the person restoring material that is in violation of BLP policies -- namely Victor/Victoria or anyone else who wants to re-add this material, and they have clearly not met it so far. I can't believe this is a controversy and I question what the motive is for adding back material that violates so many policies as well as the common sense concept of what is notable in an encyclopedia bio. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The quotes, which I agree need not be in the article, are now sourced.
 * There is absolutely no reason to hide the fact that the apology was for both herself and her sister: it's in the reference. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hiding" the information is one thing, deciding not to include it because it violates the BLP policy or is irrelevant or not noteworthy is another. Please stop re-inserting the information while the discussion is ongoing. Kelly  hi! 22:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hereby request that you revert this edit, as the sentence does not violate WP:BLP. Since it's in the reference, and the reference satisfies WP:RS by definition, there is no BLP violation. The question was whether to name the sister (which the reference does), and here on Wikipedia there is a whitewashing campaign to not include the name of the sister. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, that doesn't seem to be the sense of the discussion at WP:BLPN. The appropriate policy here is WP:NPF, I think. Kelly  hi! 05:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone ranting then apologizing is not significant unless secondary reliable sources say it is. In a thin article like this, I can see why people want to mention something about the incident, but it really appears to be trivial. Encyclopedic articles do not include every detail that can be verified, and I support the removal of the incidental information regarding the quoted text and the sister. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're asking for a reliable secondary source to come out and say "this meets Wikipedia's notability requirements," it doesn't exist. But by that standard, half the articles on Wikipedia need to be removed. Rather, the notability of the incident (and, hence, the appropriateness for inclusion on WP) is implied by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Victor Victoria has cited two such sources above, and, as such, I submit that the notability burden has been met. (I further submit that WP:NPF doesn't apply here, as I already noted at WP:BLPN. Kelly, I will repeat the request I made to you on your user talk page here: please cease claiming a false consensus based solely on your opinion.)
 * I second User:Victor Victoria's request (above) to revert this edit. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to such a revert, for several reasons. First, it would unfairly and unnecessarily cast suspicion on both of Bristol's sisters, by not specifying which one is the culprit.  Second, it's a trivial detail that she was also apologizing for a sister, and we get the most relevant stuff by simply saying that Bristol apologized.  Third, per WP:NOTNEWS, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion".  So, just because a couple secondary sources mention something doesn't mean it belongs here.  Fourth, Willow is a minor, and so there should be some higher threshold for recording at Wikipedia every dumb thing she does.  There are probably many more reasons, but these four are the ones that jump to mind.  Keep in mind that this is a BLP, so there need not be a consensus for exclusion to keep things out; a lack of consensus for inclusion will suffice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Life's not fair, but if you'd like to propose a more specific wording (i.e. spelling out that it was Willow that dropped the "f"-bomb), I'd totally support that.
 * I don't agree.
 * Pretty sure the burden's now on you to show that it's not.
 * At this moment, there is no "higher threshold for recording at Wikipedia" the "dumb" actions taken by those who happen to be "minor," and this is not the appropriate place to propose policy changes.
 * Keep in mind that just because this is a WP:BLP doesn't mean you get to go around making up policies. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, and also for the benefit of the IP editor, WP:NPF is the portion of WP:BLP I believe applies here (as I said on the WP:BLPN thread. You should probably limit your comments to there so we don't have this split discussion, which gets confusing. Also, making editsemiprotected requests is really kind of futile until a consensus is reached. Kelly  hi! 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on WP:BLPN, WP:NPF doesn't apply, and the content itself is well-sourced and appropriate. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per lack of consensus and legitimate WP:BLP concerns. As Kelly says, please establish consensus before using edit semi-protected.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per lack of consensus and legitimate WP:BLP concerns. As Kelly says, please establish consensus before using edit semi-protected.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources establishing notability
Cross posting from WP:BLPN. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Bristol Palin apologizes for Facebook rant (Salon): "Bristol Palin is apologizing for herself and her younger sister for their Facebook rant against posters criticizing their family. Palin posted the apology on her Facebook page, saying she and her 16-year-old sister Willow "shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize.""
 * 2) Willow Palin response to criticism with anti-gay Facebook rant (Today Show): "However, Bristol Palin (who chimed in to the argument between Tre and Willow) posted an apology Tuesday night on her Facebook account. "Willow and I shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize."
 * 3) Willow Palin slams Facebook attachers, defends Bristol going into 'Dancing with the Stars' finale (NY Daily News): "Willow herself drew fire last week when she was caught using homophobic rants on her Facebook page…. Bristol later apologized for her sister's comments, adding that she was sorry for joining in the fray herself and posting her own nasty remarks towards critics of her mother's show."
 * 4) Willow Palin's homophobic, hateful Facebook rant (Boston Globe): "…older sister Bristol has apologized for the flare up, but even she hasn't mentioned the f-word: “Willow and I shouldn’t have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize,” she wrote on her Facebook page."
 * 5) Willow Palin Tosses Homophobic Slurs Around on Facebook (AOL News):"Late Tuesday night, Bristol apologized on her official Facebook page. "Willow and I shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize. On a nicer note, thank you for supporting the great competition in Dancing With the Stars!""
 * 6) Bristol Palin Apologizes for Willow Palin Facebook Rant (National Ledger): "Bristol Palin has apologized for a Facebook rant from her sister Willow Palin.  She said, "We shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize."
 * 7) Willow Palin Lashes Out at Facebook "Attackers," Prefers Cheering On Bristol (E! Online): "Willow Palin has a bone to pick with the "lamestream media."'A week after big sister Bristol Palin apologized for Willow's use of a gay slur in a posting on Facebook, the 16-year-old is sounding off on her own."
 * 8) Bristol Palin Apologizes For Willow Palin's Offensive Facebook Slurs: "Bristol Palin has returned to her Facebook page, not for more inappropriate prattle with her sister Willow Palin, but to apologize for the offensive comments she and Willow made during a war on the social networking site this week"
 * 9) Bristol Palin Apologizes for Antigay Slurs (The Advocate): "Bristol Palin took to Facebook to apologize, or not, for antigay slurs she and her sister wielded in response to a young man who criticized their mother Sarah Palin’s television show on the social networking site."
 * Once again, please stop forking the same conversation on multiple pages. And I say this with all respect, but might I suggest reading WP:STICK? Kelly  hi! 02:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As the original author who edited this portion as well as adding in the article, I failed to see a strong argument why this should be excluded, as it is only one person's opinion to exclude the referenced fact because they personally felt it is trivial. I would like to request to have Victor Victoria's suggested revert to be placed back in. Ptahcha (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion opened at WP:ANI
At WP:ANI. Kelly hi! 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Siblings in infobox
I removed the names and years of birth of Bristol's 4 siblings for a number of reasons: this is an article about her, not her brothers and sisters, the "relatives" field is usually only used for notable relatives per Template:Infobox person and none of the siblings are even notable enough for their own article; BLP policies favor privacy of information regarding minors over unnecessary disclosure or gratuitous repetition, and 3 of the 4 are minors; BLP policy and custom result in most articles not even including the names and DOBs of a notable person's own children, unless the children are notable in their own right. Finally, and the information I have removed (a listing of the names and dates of births of Bristol's siblings) is found in the Sarah Palin article which is wikiliked right in the info box of this article, so nothing is lost or buried or hidden or whitewashed or whatever-you-want-to-call-it - in fact, the information is found in its most logical place, the article on their mother, Sarah Palin's. Please bear in mind that I have made several arguments here. If you are going to dispute this innocuous and policy compliant article improvement, please refute or answer all of my arguments before restoring the names and years of birth of Bristol's 4 non notable relatives.-Best regards- --KeptSouth (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of your arguments, and the removal. Tvoz / talk 03:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A LOT of negative content here for a 20 year old girl
Is this really what wikipedia is for? Really? 24.29.14.54 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is about capturing facts. Don't blame the contributors - blame the subject. Ptahcha (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. This is supposed to be a balanced biography, not a permanent record of every piece of trivia which passers by care to add to the article; see WP:5P for an overview, and WP:DUE in particular. Also, see WP:TP to learn about indenting comments. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Chena
The town of Chena, very near Fairbanks, disappeared in the early twentieth century, leaving no ice museum. There is an ice museum at Chena Hot Springs, about 60 miles from Fairbanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Jaw surgery
I've added and sourced the discussion and controversy over her jaw surgery. The surgery has dramatically changed her appearance to the point she looks like a different person. It's such a drastic change and she publicly claims it was not plastic surgery. Many stories out there are quoting Plastic surgeons to say otherwise. I'm using jennifer grey as a reference (here in discussion) as to the relevance of the addition. It her public claims aren't true (if she had plastic surgery to look different), her credibility would change with the misstatement. --Cohen2011 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? And her mother is against rape victims . If this turns out to be some huge story in a year, maybe revist then. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a valid entry as it drastically changed her face, she looks like a different person. Whether or not it was a plastic surgery for looks or a valid medical issue fixed, is not the point. I sourced the topic well. You instead mock rather than explain a valid reason for the removal. Its been moved to Early life section rather than a topical point header. Please show respect to your other wikipedia editors in the future. If you have a valid point of change on this, please voice it here prior to editing. Thank you kindly. --Cohen2011 (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What you say is opinionated about changing her look and as I said above, the reason for removal is that it really isn't that notable. If, after some time and reflection, it turns out to be notable and widely reported and commented on and a majority of editors think its of encyclopedic value, then it can be revisited. Right now, I don't see a major consensus for inclusion. That, of course, can change. More eyes are always welcome. Maybe bring this to the BLP board so others can comment. My sarcasim comes of the high profile of this subject's family and the number of editors who edit based on an agenda. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ps, its like her not turning in her absentee ballott, how is that notable? Becasue her mother is a political big shot, and oou, she was too busy dancing so she is somehow a hypocrite, gottch yaa? How does that add to the understanding of the subject? Is that really of encyclopeic value or more suited for TMZ (my favorite tv showby the way)? Just becasue some "material" shows up in a paper or other RS doesn't mean it can automatically be added to an article(though that happens alot around here), especially BLPs.--Threeafterthree (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I revised the jaw surgery to remove any hint of sensationalism or tabloid fodder. It is a valid entry as she doesn't appear to look like the person in the photo any longer. Not trying to post news updates either, this happened earlier this year and she will always look different because of it, it's most valid for example, than the real estate purchase she made and price paid which hasn't raised any contention. Thank you engaging your concerns with me. --Cohen2011 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You also included detailed sexual history for no apparant reason. That appears to be a BLP violation.  Arzel (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I just addressed that in the new section of the memoir. This person is directly known for her talks about pregnancy and sexual practice. She spokesperson who is paid to talk about this very subject. The notation is being drawn from her official memoir. Please revise language as you see fit, but leave it in. --Cohen2011 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Memoir backstory
i posted some valid backstory which is direct from her 2011 memoir regarding her pregnancy. Since her career is based on her advice on sexual practice and her pregnancy it's an essential point of topic to her bio. It should be revised or expanded but not removed. comment added by Cohen2011 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the memoir backstory of her sexual story until the wording can be agreed on. I feel it needs to be added under the subcategory. In some form.--Cohen2011 (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)