Talk:Bristol Palin

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. ★Dasani★ 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 "headshot" 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 photo we had been using, 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Pregnancy announcement section needs work

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)

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)

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)

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

	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)