Talk:Bristol Palin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

report at the BLP noticeboard

To anyone involved/concerned - Wikipedia:Biographies_of living persons/Noticeboard#Bristol palin - Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Current Information

I could swear that I read that she is back living in Alaska. Can someone research and put it in the article? It seems the last bit of information is 2011 and the house she bought that she does not live in. Mylittlezach (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusing and Unclear in places

For example: "Palin was born and raised in Wasilla, Alaska.[1][4] She was named "Bristol" after the Bristol Inn where her mother had been employed; Bristol, Connecticut, the headquarters city of ESPN, where her mother had hoped to work as a sportscaster; and the Bristol Bay region of Alaska, where her father grew up.[5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelestialSpore (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it used to say, "Her mother was formerly employed", but a couple other editors declared the current usage is an improvement. Similarly, "Her mother named her after" was sacked. Additionally, "had hoped" is accurate in this case because if you read the sources, Sarah allegedly hoped to work at ESPN in Bristol, Connecticut. ★Dasani★ 21:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede and Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp

The article Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp was deleted from the lede. As this is her show, it has been added again. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it further down in the lede, no evidence it's significant enough for the first sentence. Kelly ^hi! 04:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-gay slurs

Removed false claim / BLP violation that Bristol Palin had posted anti-gay slurs on a Facebook page. The source cited makes it clear that it was Willow Palin, not Bristol, who made them. 64.121.177.201 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The source says that both of them made the slurs: "Bristol Palin took to Facebook to apologize, or not, for antigay slurs she and her sister wielded…"^{[emphasis added]}[1] —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reports from many news organizations, including The Associated Press, ABC, MSNBC, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and The New York Daily News, say that it was Willow, not Bristol, that used the anti-gay slurs. If you have any doubt, TMZ has a screen capture of the comments. The claim is false and is a violation of WP:BLP. 64.121.177.201 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Associated Press and MSNBC are very liberal outfits, so they would not necessarily be valid sources for any of the Palins. Mainstream media loathed the Palins and still do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that she didn't make the remarks and the mainstream media outlets -- numerous networks and newspapers in several countries -- are making this up? "The Palins have always hated when the press report facts and still do"? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Daughter of Sarah Palin

Bristol seems to be the daughter of Sarah Palin. --67.81.194.190 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think most people will have worked that out by now.

However, is she notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Archive links

Per WP:WAYBACK: "Editors are also encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation...."

There is no telling when a link will rot, and unless an archive link is there, there's no way to know if archiving has been done. In all my time on Wikipedia, I've never, ever heard of someone deleting archive links. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

What is "speaker" is an occupation?

Ms. Palin is listed as "an American speaker" and reality TV star. Speaker is not a job or profession. It does not even link to a wiki as anything. Nearly all Americans speak and are speakers.

Perhaps she is a "motivational" speaker? But that needs references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Bianco (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of erroneous material

I deleted the claim that Bristol started high school at Juneau-Douglas high in 2005.

There is zero support for that claim in the citations provided.

Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla in 2002 and quit office early to campaign for Lt. Governor, finishing second in the Republican primary. In 2003, she was appointed by Governor Frank Murkowski as the public representative to the 3-member Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which is located in Anchorage. She was living in eastern Wasilla, near the Parks Highway. She quit the commission early and ran for governor in 2006. She won the August Republican primary over the unpopular Murkowski, and was elected with a plurality as governor in November 2006, taking office in early December.

Sarah was known for retaining her primary residence in Wasilla rather than living in the governor's mansion in Juneau and billed the state for both per diem and mileage while living in her own home and commuting daily to the Anchorage offices of the Commission and the Governor, about a 90-mile round trip.

If Bristol had moved to Juneau after her mother was elected, she would have started at Juneau-Douglas H.S. at the earliest in January of 2007, certainly not "2005." She also attended West High in Anchorage and Wasilla High, and was doing home schooling as well, if memory serves.

I would think that as particular as some Wikipedia editors are about including negative info or deleting same as well as removing vandalism, that someone should pay attention to these basic facts.

I'm surprised that there isn't any mention of the family brawl in Anchorage in which she was involved, as it was major news in Alaska. Activist (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of pregnancy anouncement

Somebody is raising WP:BLP concerns regarding criticism that Bristol Palin received for her pregnancy announcement [2] [3]. 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)

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

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)

Puffery?

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.

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100715211046/http://www.etonline.com:80/news/2010/07/88788/ to http://www.etonline.com/news/2010/07/88788/

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)