Talk:Bristol Palin

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)

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)

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)

<undent>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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Willow Palin. 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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} 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:

My changes to objectionable paragraph

Victor Victoria's revert

During the premiere of "Sarah Palin's Alaska", Bristol posted defensive comments about the show on the Facebook page of a schoolmate of her sister who had criticized the show. Some of Bristol's comments included salty language for which she later apologized.

During the premiere of "Sarah Palin's Alaska", Bristol posted a number of comments on the Facebook page of a boy named Tre, who went to school with her sister Willow. Some of Bristol's comments included "You're running your mouth just to talk shit" and "Talking shit 'cause you have nothing else going for you." Palin posted those comments in response to Tre's comment saying "Sarah Palin's Alaska, is failing so hard right now." Bristol later apologized on behalf of herself and her sister, Willow, who posted a homophobic slur on the same Facebook page.

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.)

{{edit semi-protected}}

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)

1. 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.
2. I don't agree.
3. Pretty sure the burden's now on you to show that it's not.
4. 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.
5. 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)

 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.

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."

184.59.23.225 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

Related discussion opened at WP:ANI

At WP:ANI#Sarah Palin community article probation. Kelly ^hi! 03:26, 28 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)

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}}

	Requesting that this:	Become this:
formatted	Palin's first dance was a cha-cha to Three Dog Night's version of "Mama Told Me Not to Come", seen as a humorous reference to Sarah Palin.	Palin's first dance was a cha-cha to Three Dog Night's version of "Mama Told Me Not To Come", widely seen as a humorous reference to Sarah Palin.
unformatted	Palin's first dance was a [[cha-cha]] to [[Three Dog Night]]'s version of "[[Mama Told Me Not to Come]]", seen{{By whom}} as a humorous reference to Sarah Palin.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20017097-10391698.html|title=Bristol Palin's "Dancing With The Stars" Debut Pokes Fun at Mom|last=Lee|first=Joyce| date=21 September 2010|publisher=CBS News|accessdate=3 November 2010}}</ref>	Palin's first dance was a [[cha-cha]] to [[Three Dog Night]]'s version of "[[Mama Told Me Not To Come]]", widely seen<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/bristol-palin-on-dwts-mama-told-me/|title=Bristol Ignores 'Mama' on 'DWTS'|quote="And yes, she's aware that the title is ironic."}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/09/bristol-palins-dancing-with-th.html|title=Bristol Palin's Dancing With the Stars song: "Mama Told Me (Not to Come)"|quote="As we reported earlier today, for her very first outing on ABC's dance competition series "Dancing with the Stars," Bristol Palin, daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and America's Most Famous Unwed Teen Mom, will do the Cha Cha to "Mama Told Me (Not To Come)."[Insert your double entendre joke here.]" }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1314260/Bristol-Palin-survives-Dancing-With-The-Stars-racy-routine-Mama-Told-Me-Not-To-Come.htm|title=Bristol Palin survives Dancing With The Stars with racy routine to Mama Told Me Not To Come|quote="Clearly hoping to capitalise on the family's controversial time in the spotlight, she said: ‘I’ve always been close to my mum growing up but sometimes I haven’t and this song plays on that.’"}}</ref> as a humorous reference to Sarah Palin.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20017097-10391698.html|title=Bristol Palin's "Dancing With The Stars" Debut Pokes Fun at Mom|last=Lee|first=Joyce| date=21 September 2010|publisher=CBS News|accessdate=3 November 2010}}</ref>

184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Still requesting this modification. The template added by Kelly (talk · contribs) 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[1] and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons content policy. Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs), 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs) 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 | (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

1. Bristol is relevant to the case because she issued the apology on behalf of Willow
2. 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)

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

{{edit protected}}

	Requesting that this:	Become this:
formatted	Palin's first dance was a cha-cha to Three Dog Night's version of "Mama Told Me Not to Come", seen as a humorous reference to Sarah Palin.	Palin's first dance was a cha-cha to Three Dog Night's version of "Mama Told Me Not To Come", widely seen as a humorous reference to Sarah Palin.
unformatted	Palin's first dance was a [[cha-cha]] to [[Three Dog Night]]'s version of "[[Mama Told Me Not to Come]]", seen{{By whom}} as a humorous reference to Sarah Palin.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20017097-10391698.html|title=Bristol Palin's "Dancing With The Stars" Debut Pokes Fun at Mom|last=Lee|first=Joyce| date=21 September 2010|publisher=CBS News|accessdate=3 November 2010}}</ref>	Palin's first dance was a [[cha-cha]] to [[Three Dog Night]]'s version of "[[Mama Told Me Not To Come]]", widely seen<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/bristol-palin-on-dwts-mama-told-me/|title=Bristol Ignores 'Mama' on 'DWTS'|quote="And yes, she's aware that the title is ironic."}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/09/bristol-palins-dancing-with-th.html|title=Bristol Palin's Dancing With the Stars song: "Mama Told Me (Not to Come)"|quote="As we reported earlier today, for her very first outing on ABC's dance competition series "Dancing with the Stars," Bristol Palin, daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and America's Most Famous Unwed Teen Mom, will do the Cha Cha to "Mama Told Me (Not To Come)."[Insert your double entendre joke here.]" }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1314260/Bristol-Palin-survives-Dancing-With-The-Stars-racy-routine-Mama-Told-Me-Not-To-Come.htm|title=Bristol Palin survives Dancing With The Stars with racy routine to Mama Told Me Not To Come|quote="Clearly hoping to capitalise on the family's controversial time in the spotlight, she said: ‘I’ve always been close to my mum growing up but sometimes I haven’t and this song plays on that.’"}}</ref> as a humorous reference to Sarah Palin.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20017097-10391698.html|title=Bristol Palin's "Dancing With The Stars" Debut Pokes Fun at Mom|last=Lee|first=Joyce| date=21 September 2010|publisher=CBS News|accessdate=3 November 2010}}</ref>

184.59.23.225 (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Model display of how to format an editprotected request ;) Thanks. -- œ^™ 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion of son's birthdate per WP:BLP

Victor Victoria (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added details about the birthdate of Bristol Palin's son. WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources (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:

1. Bristol Palin is now clearly notable
2. 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 Purplebackpack89 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., [2]), 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 • ^talkblp-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 • ^talkblp-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)

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)