Talk:Bristol Palin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 11, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
December 31, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept

Criticism of pregnancy anouncement[edit]

Somebody is raising WP:BLP concerns regarding criticism that Bristol Palin received for her pregnancy announcement [1] [2]. The criticism removed seems to be in line with WP:Criticism in that it is all well documented and not overly covered (one sentence). Since the announcement was public and of an angry tone, it appears to me to be appropriate to cover how it was received. On face value, the concern raised appears to be frivolous. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The criticism does not appear to be either notable or substantive. I would characterize it as just pettiness. Highlighting such a criticism of a single thing that the subject of this biography has said, something that is not integral to her biography in any way, just seems to give undue weight to something that is trivial. Deli nk (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I cannot see how hypocrisy is "petty". This is not criticism for grammar or spelling. Hypocrisy is rather substantive, and is rather integral to a biography. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding. Hypocrisy isn't petty. Calling someone a hypocrite is petty if the reasons for it are inconsequential. The comment made by Palin was insignificant in terms of her biography and criticism of an insignificant statement just looks petty and highlighting it in a biography could make Wikipedia look petty. Deli nk (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
And how did you come up with the conclusion that it's inconsequential? Is it your original research? Victor Victoria (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC) I would even go as far as to say that to present only Bristol Palin's statement w/o reactions to the statement would violate WP:NPOV. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
My position, like your position, is just an editorial opinion about whether to include something in a biography or not. WP:OR has nothing to do with this. Deli nk (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Puffery?[edit]

On December 29, 2015, Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC) moved this discussion from user talk page to article talk page for archival purposes.


I Googled "Bristol Palin," Anchorage and brawl, and got 26,000 hits. These included the ADN, ABC, the BBC, People, TPM, the N.Y. Daily News in the first 10, and out at the hundredth cite, the Guardian. My adjective "well-publicized," would seem to be objective. Some of that coverage was accompanied by photos of bruises sustained by participants. If you agree, could you revert your edit? I'm not trying to be argumentative. Please feel comfortable with disagreeing. Thanks. Activist (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Activist Hopefully, all items on Wikipedia are supported by a depth of reliable sources. Similarly, the article about the Hatfields-McCoys feud would not be a "well-publicized feud" but just a feud. Do these 26,000 reports of a brawl discuss the social and historical implications of the brawl or that it just happened?
Now, you raise an interesting point about the reporting of the brawl. Other than Palins being there, what significance was the event for it to be published in an encyclopedia? the social and historical implications of the brawl?
In the past, I edited the article about Ri Sol-ju. I bring this up to illustrate the point about reporting. Darcie Draudt, a critic, brought up the point on how reporters and, more importantly, the audience focuses on odd events.[1]
Well, I slogged through the Wikipedia article about Kim's wife, through the Draudt article as well, and, for reference, articles about Robert Downey, Jr. and Mel Gibson, whose lives have been marked by similar escapades, to see how they were presented. The brawl would not have been noteworthy had it been between (I presume) you and I or anyone else who is not a well known cultural figure, and if their public persona were not of some significance: The comparison appears to be apples and oranges. Bristol is a person who has made an ironic and exceedingly* comfortable living being a role model, so the notoriety the brawl generated seems, well, notable. You might get a chuckle, by the way, at the text which some editor pasted to both the Downey and Gibson articles, but which has been heavily redacted and expurgated from Mel's, but not Jr.'s. P.S. Thanks for your perseverance in deleting the questionable birth date for the very mysterious Mrs. Un. By the way, I had not run across the Wikipedia (only?) "Peacock" reference before. *She complained that someone had stolen her "$300 sunglasses" during the fight. Activist (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I did not mean for you to read the Ri article but understand the source of the pop cultural mirror we are holding up. A discussion (outside of Wikipedia) of peacocking and weaseling can be found at https://www.writeraccess.com/blog/avoiding-peacock-and-weasel-terms/ . I just removed the term "well-publicized" which I equate as "a well-known", which is third on the list in the discussion. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
So, think of this to put into an encyclopedia:
On September 6, 2014 , Bristol Pailin attended a party that degenerated into a brawl. Strangely, 26,000 reports of this can be found on the Internet.
On December 16, 1773, some guys dressed as Native Americans attended a tea party that degenerated into a revolutionary war. Strangely, King George thought that this was unimportant.
In the first sentence, the 26,000 reports that you mention are a pop culture mirror and that is the real story (and the point that Draudt was making about Western reports of Ri). After all, on September 6, 2014, did not something more important than a Palin brawl happen that day to generate a couple of thousand reports. Pop culture put the news of the weird before something else.
In the second sentence, the cultural and historic significance of the Boston Tea party is encyclopedic because it has a lasting effect (and still keeps being reported on) even though King George ignored it.
Just removing the word. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. I went back and read a couple of other original stories on the incident, by the way, plus the police reports. Sheesh! Thanks for all your input. Very thought provoking. Activist (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Draudt, Darcie (3 March 2013). "Ri Sol-ju Goes Viral: What Social Media Reveal about the DPRK's First Lady". SinoNK.com. Retrieved 15 July 2013. 

Bristol Palin's position on the Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute[edit]

In a typical BLP, a person's publicly stated political positions are included. There appears to be at least two editors (here and here) who do not wish to include Palin's position on the controversy Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute. One of the editors appears to be flat out editing in bad faith to not include information. The stated position for removing reference to the publicly stated political position is that it is "embarassing" (SIC). Reading WP:BLP, the word "embarrassing" is nowhere to be found, but WP:BLP does say "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" -- and that has been satisfied in this case, so there has to be a compelling reason to remove the material and "embarassing" (SIC) does not cut it IMO. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not support adding this to the article. The comment Palin made appears to be inconsequential in terms of her biography. She made a brief statement that might be considered dumb and her detractors pounce on it and try to pretend that it is an important "political position". It is just childishness. It makes a mockery of the intended purpose of Wikipedia. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute is a legitimate dispute, and she took a real position on the dispute. This was not part of a stand-up routine. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for memorializing dumb but unimportant things said by celebrities one dislikes. When one concentrates on female celebrities, it's fair to describe the behavior as misogynistic. The statement that "there has to be a compelling reason" to remove any sourced material is, in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines", completely fictitious; it's part of routine editing. For an editor to engage in personal attacks and accusations of bad faith while advancing fictitious policy claims is a strong signal that their editing is agenda-driven rather than constructively intended. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bristol Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bristol Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)