Talk:Kristi Noem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Farm Subsidy Controversy

It is well documented that Racota Valley Ranch (Kristi's ranch) has received $2,598,827 in farm subsidies since 1995. This is fact and as such is unbiased information. If you don't believe this should be a part of this page then please explain your logic. Otherwise the continued removal of this section will be reported to the admin page as persistent vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodapaps (talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sodapaps: You have written a highly biased section. It is one-sided and it is a personal attack on a living person, which violates various Wikipedia rules. You have been editing the article as a sockpuppet--changing IP addresses, etc. You have removed factual information over and over again, e.g., the FACT that Noem is the Assistant Majority Leader and the citation for that FACT. You editing is a combination of POV pushing, falsehoods, and removal of fully source relevant information. If you want to edit the article feel free, but if you engage in edits that are POV pushing and violations of BLP, then I will revert your edits. You are either a sockpuppet of an earlier editor and that is why you concealed your identity behind a series of IP addresses OR you are a new editor and you simply do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. Now, let's get this straight one more time, an "alma mater" is simply a school where an individual attended--please read the Wikipedia definition of "alma mater" closely because for a school to be someone's alma mater they do not have to graduate. That is a fact. Now, you might not like that FACT, but it is not up to you to enforce your own POV on the article. Please see the article on Bill Gates or hundreds of other people that have articles about them that did not graduate from various schools. SDSU is Noem's alma mater and that is all there is to it. Also, it is POV pushing to state that she is "a 38 year old college dropout." That is a inherently biased comment and as such it will be edited or removed. Please learn the rules of Wikipedia before you start to edit.--InaMaka (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am not sockpuppet. I did create the original edits for the controversy portion as well as removing the "alma matter" section as it is misleading and biased in its own way. However, I was not signed in at the time so only my IP appears. Fortunately for me, others have stepped in to help revert your blatant vandalism of Kristi's page. The farm subsidies she has received are well documented facts and are not POV or biased. They are what they are. It's as if I said she was female, and you complained that that was POV. As of this moment, I am reverting the page back and keeping the Alma Matter section. Sodapaps (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated over and over again on your various talk pages (both your current and your three IP address talk pages) and elsewhere, "alma mater" is a school where you attended and Wikipedia does NOT require that someone graduate from a school for it to be considered an alma mater. Once again, please review Bill Gates; he attended but did not graduate from Harvard University. Please review Sarah Palin; she attended several schools--and they are all listed in her bio--but she only graduated from one of them. Also, I made changes to the article, based upon your concerns, that make it clear that Noem has attended SDSU but has not graduated--similar to the way that Gates' tenure at Harvard is treated in Wikipedia. As to the farm subsisdy issue, you have written it in a POV pushing way and then you told me to edit it so that it isn't POV. That's not the way that Wikipedia works. You are responsible for your edits. If you want to add the farm subsisdy information and you find reliable sources to back up the information that you put in the article then it might be appropriate. But the way that you wrote it and the sources that you used it was not appropriate according to the Wikipedia rules. You MUST follow BLP, NPOV, and you must use reliable sources to back up whatever is place there. Your addition did not do that.--InaMaka (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is the first time we have discussed these issues. Further, I have never asked you to edit anything I have posted. Please stop inferring that I am someone else. All it does is lower your credibility. I am willing to allow the "alma mater" piece to stand, however misleading it may be. However, I will continue to push the issue of the farm subsidy controversy as it is fact. Most historical figures on Wikipedia have sections that list controversies. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that this is against Wikipedia policy. I have even added a legitimate source as you have requested. Do what you may, but if you remove this section I will simply continue to add it back in.Sodapaps (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is a team project and you MUST follow the rules and since you are a new editor you should take the time to learn these rules. POV pushing is not allowed. Reliable sources MUST be used. And it is NOT up to you to "allow" SDSU to be listed as her alma mater. SDSU is her alma mater and you have no control over that fact and whether it be in the article. Also, your own personal commentary is not allowed. Also, since your editing has been what it has been it is not my credibility that is in question. You were editing with personal commentary--with no reliable sources--you were removed reliably sourced notable info (the FACT that Noem's alma mater is SDSU). You need to work on your credibility by simply learning the rules since you are a brand new editor. You will not add back in anything that is not reliably sourced, that is POV pushing, that is personal attack on a living person (such as your additions where wrote "She is a college drop-out" over and over again). Those types of edits will be removed.--InaMaka (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the inclusion of the farm subsidy is POV? I have removed all "biased" citations and inserted a citation from a legitimate source. Also, I never put that she dropped out of college. You have now resorted to lying, which, once again, lowers your credibility. Also, I apologize. i was not signed in when I made the last edit. Oooo! Now you can claim I am 6 different people again!Sodapaps (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you should learn the rules of Wikipedia before you decide you are going to edit. It is clear that you don't know the rules based upon your editing activity and your questions about basic rules. When you put in the article that "she dropped out of college." You are violating several Wikipedia rules. First of all, she has NOT dropped out of college. She is currently attending SDSU therefore with your lie you violated BLP rules where you just simply made up a negative allegation and placed it in Wikipedia, i.e., you spoke ill of a living person. With your lie you violated one of the pillars of Wikipedia which is write the articles with a neutral point of view. You have been editing with 5 different IP addresses and you have been lying about that, claiming that there are several other editors that agree with you. That is BS. Who are these mythical editors?? Why doesn't this group of four editors have names and are registered? Why?? You don't have a good answer for that question because you know and I know that all of those IP addresses were you and lied about how they belonged to others. You aren't one to talk about anyone's credibility when you hide behind various IP addresses and lie about who they belong to. You also have no room to discuss credibility since you flat out lied, several times, by editing the article and stating that she "dropped out of college." She is in college right now, so you flat out lied. Since she is in college you can't call her a "drop out" unless you are a liar. Yeah, I know that I sound childish but apparently I have to get down to your immature level and explain your BS to you in the starkest terms since you either refuse to follow the rules or you mentally cannot understand the rules. Also, about the farm subsidy info. All of the comments that you placed in the article are your opinion. You did not quote anyone. It was all you. You are a Wikipedian you don't have a right to express your opinion in the article. That is why I will remove it all day long. Remember if you revert three of more times in one day then you have violated the 3RR rule so don't do it. If you want to personally attack the Kristi Noem because you don't like her politics go get a blog and do it there. The Wikipedia article is no place for your BS opinions. Learn the rules, nubie, and follow them, nubie. Can you do that, nubie?????--InaMaka (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember to stay civil when discussing things. It looks bad when you start quoting rules left and right but have trouble following one yourself. sdgjake (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. I have been civil with this sockpuppet for way too long. I have asked him in various ways to stop engaging in personal attacks on a living person's talk page for days, but the sock keeps doing it. If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem. If the sock continues to edit and violate rules then I am going to tell the sock what I think. Also, I have not engaged in any uncivil behaviour. I have called him a sock, but that is what he is. I stated that he lied, but unfortunately that is what he has done. It is not a matter of debate. Ms. Noem is a living person that is currently a student at SDSU. Sock has repeatedly stated that she has "dropped out of school." This is simply not true. He has put this falsehood in the article several times. I have asked Sock to stop it over and over again. But he would not stop. Thank you for your input, but encouraging Sock to violate BLP is not a constructive use of time.--InaMaka (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to where you think I encouraged their behaviour? You'll note the only thing I called you on was being uncivil. I agrree with you on all other points. sdgjake (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the current change. I am still curious, however, why you keep calling me a sock and inferring that I put that she dropped out of college. You have yet to address this as I never made that edit. My name is spelled "s-o-d-a-p-a-p-s". It is apparent that you have some basic reading comprehension problems. Anyway, I like how the page reads now and I appreciate you recognizing that the farm subsidy issue is "truth" and including it in the article.Sodapaps (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, horse hockey. You realize that I was right all along and now you are attempting to save face. I removed all of your biased one-sided commentary and it will be removed again. Also, I reverted your attempts to state that she "dropped out of college" and I pointed out all of your uses of various and sundry IP addresses to hide your biased, one-sided commentary and editing. But of course it is now in a format that follows the rules of Wikipedia and I'm glad that you finally acknowledge that fact. Now, you can use as many IP addresses that you want, as long as you log in as sodapaps. As an experienced editor I'm glad that I could straighten out a new editor such as yourself, one that either did not know the rules or was willfully choosing to ignore them with violations of BLP, sockpuppetry, etc. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

TL:DRSodapaps (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm going to remove the subsidy information, at least for now, per WP:PRIMARY, which states "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." The database cited is certainly a primary source. Also, looking at the Ownership Interests for that ranch in the same database shows Noem is a minority owner (something on the order of a 16% interest in the ranch) and it contains a note that ownership doesn't necessarily relate to subsidy payments. Is there a reliable secondary source that analyzes this subsidy information? Kelly ^hi! 13:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would've thought the USDA would be the primary source in this instance and the Environmental Working Group would be the secondary source. Regardless, there's nothing interpretive about reporting the total subsidies for the ranch. I do agree that her 16.9% interest should be stated alongside the subsidy though. I've included a separate article which supports the language. Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Farm subsidy section break

Hmmm - that source states that she's no longer an owner. Just wondering why is this info being included in the "Personal Life" section anyway? It seems odd - the paragraph is a brief summary of her life, then there's this "oh by the way" subsidy thing tacked on. Is this some kind of political thing from her opponents? Kelly ^hi! 01:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Upon reading the wikipedia definition of an Alma Mater I have removed SDSU as Noem's listed Alma Mater. From the wikipedia definition, "In modern times, it is often a school, college, or university attended during one's formative years, which is often interpreted to mean from where one earned one's first degree or doctorate, or both." Noem has not recieved any degree from SDSU. Sodapaps (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, she dropped out of SDSU when her dad died. Sounds like she has kept taking classes to finish up her poli sci degree though. Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she did drop however she returned to school and she is currently attending. Also, Sodapaps claim that alma mater only applies to a school that one graduates from is untrue. Once again, I will point out that Bill Gates attended Harvard University, but did not graduate. Harvard is listed in Gate's article as his alma mater. Alma mater, by any definition is a school that one attends period, not a school that one graduates from, but it can one from which one graduates. Therefore, Sodapaps attempts to strip the article of Noem's alma mater is not appropriate and Sodapaps attempts to write in the article "She is a college dropout" and Tea Party voters have supporter her because Tea Party voters are support illiterate politician are just the rambling, inappropriate comments of Sodapaps and not based upon any reliable sources.--InaMaka (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka, that has to be one of the most incoherent things I've ever read. That being said, I think I did manage to decipher what you were attempting to say and I agree with you on the issue of her Alma Mater, which is why I haven't changed it since our discussion. Now, if you would kindly link to the part where I claimed she was a college dropout I would appreciate it. As far as I remember the only thing I ever did was remove SDSU as her Alma Mater. Unless, of course, you aren't assuming good faith, in which case I'll just chalk this up to you being you.Sodapaps (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Until an issue was raised concerning Kristi Noem's place of birth had alwys listed it as Charleston, South Carolina. It is very obvious that a member of the Noem campaign, edited this section for political purposes. Also, if Kristi Arnold Noem was born in South Dakota, the city of Watertown is more likely place of birth, has the hospital in Estelline- the only one in Hamlin County in 1971- did not have a maternity ward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.155.82 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• the speculation above borders on original research. a maternity ward isn't necessarily required. I don't know what reliable sources say, but generally if an official bio says where she was born, then we should use that. Please assume good faith. What evidence do you have that it's "obvious" someone from the campaign changed the article?DCmacnut<> 02:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Traffic violations

I don't see how this violates WP:BLP:

A news report in August 2010 found that Noem had a number of traffic and legal issues -- including more than twenty speeding tickets (including one over 100 mph), three stop sign violations, two seat belt violations, no driver's license, six notices for failure to appear in court and two arrest warrants.

But this:

A news report in August 2010 pointed out that Noem has received several speeding tickets over the years.

provides less information and seems to water down the content. The facts in the first version are sourced and seem neutral to me except for the bit about a the ticket over 100, which I'll fix. I'd be open to a differently worded version that contained all the facts, but "several speeding tickets" really doesn't cut it. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanking traffic violation section

Please stop removing this section. It does not violate BLP issues and is a legitimate issue that is appropriate to include in Noem's article. Gobonobo ^{T C} 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you out. I don't know what game you are playing with the Kristi Noem article, but it is simple matter of how to edit it. If the traffic violations are a valid topic for inclusion in the Noem article then the traffic violations of Noem's opponent's chief of staff ("COS") are ALSO valid for inclusion in the article. Now, if the traffic violations are not valid for inclusion then the traffic violations of the COS are not valid for inclusion. An admin removed the COS's DUI conviction for the Herseth Sandlin article because the admin argued that personal articles are NOT the place for every tit for tat of the campaign. Noem's traffic violations are only in the news because of the give and take of the campaign--just as the DUI of the COS. So applying the logic of the admin working the Herseth Sandlin article to the Noem article then traffic violations should not be included. Also, there are BLP issues involved. Do we want to put in Wikipedia the traffic violations of each and every person that has an article about them? No. Please review the BLP rules. There is also the issue of undue weight. Listing all of her violations one by one takes up a huge part of her bio. Now, you have been editing at Wikipedia for quite a long time now. I have butted heads with you in the past. You have given me the same inappropriate warning in the past. You do not discuss the issues you just revert and then put warning above on my talk page. From now on the burden in on you to DISCUSS. Just don't tell people to discuss. Start discussing. It is a delay tactic on your part. If this had been the first time that you gave me that warning then I understanding but we have had this exact same discussion. Also, I did discuss the changes on the edit summary. And you know this. I can tell by the way that edited my talk page. The original warning asks that comments be left in the edit summary--which I did--so you edited the warning to remove the part about discussing in the edit summary. Now, unless you provide good reasoning on why either ALL of the traffic violations (and that includes the violations of Noem and the COS) belong in the article about Noem then I am going to remove the references to the traffic violations because they violate BLP and undue weight. Now, in response to your warning, let this be fair warning to you that you need to start discussing issues before you blindly revert.--InaMaka (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka, let's please try to be civil and assume good faith. I saw that you added information about Gould's DUI to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's article as well as to this page. After both of your changes were reverted, you removed any mention of traffic violations from this article. While controversial, Noem's traffic violations are certain to come up in the final months of her campaign and Wikipedia should include mention of them. It should be noted that Wikipedia is not censored. I don't agree that there are BLP violations here (as the material is both verifiable and neutral) or that the inclusion of the traffic violations amounts to undue weight. If you disagree, please clarify so that we can discuss your concerns.

As for the inclusion of Gould's DUI on this article, I hope you will agree that it is entirely unrelated. This article is about Noem, not her political opponent's staffers. The incident had nothing to do with Noem and does not warrant a mention here. If this were an article about Gould, there would be no question about including her DUI. If you're not already familiar with the relevant policies, please see WP:COAT and WP:OWN. Thanks, Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you out. There is a relevant policy that you must not be aware of because you just violated it. You have recommended to me to review the OWN policy which means that you believe that I think I own the article since I created it. Now, let me be clear it is against Wikipedia policy to claim that I am not working in good faith because I think I "own" the article. Now, you now have been made aware of that policy so let's put that to rest going forward. I don't own the article any more than you do, but of course in direct contravention to what you have claimed I have NEVER claimed that I do own the article. So just stop it. Period.--InaMaka (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recommendation that I review COAT means that you believe that I am attempting to turn one of the articles into a coatrack. So let's just get that one out of the way also. Of course, I am not attempting to create a coatrack. I'm just trying make the articles consistent with each other. Either the traffic violations are relevant or they are not. I am working on just one topic. A coatrack is a series of things added to the article to hurt someone's reputation. Once again, I am just working on one topic. So that red herring can be sent away.--InaMaka (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made the point and I am doing it again--but having to jump through a bunch of distractions--that the traffic records of Noem ALREADY is a campaign issue and Gould's traffic record is ALREADY a campaign issue. Noem's tickets did not happen in the last year. They are all old. They are only coming up now because of the campaign. The ticket are a campaign issue--just like Gould's traffic record is an issue. I am just attempting to balance the article with relevant, reliably sourced information. Also, if we decide (and consensus must be reached--don't revert me again without discussion as you have in the past) that the traffic violations must remain then the violations need to be trimmed down. Because as they are currently written there clearly undue weight given to them. Also, your statement that my trim down "just doesn't cut it" will not work. If I was you I would tell you to review the Wikipedia policy about OWN, but I am not going to do that. What I am going to say is stop it. You need to engage in real discussions with editors that you don't agree with and that is the way to reach concensus. You need to engage in real discussion by stopping reverting me without comment and then slapping scary warning templates on my talk page. It is truly annoying and it violates the general policy that you claim that I violate which is good faith. The traffic tickets are a campaign issue for both Noem and Herseth Sandlin. That is all the media has talked about in SD for the last two weeks. So if we are going to put in Noem article long endless details about Noem's record then there will be campaign context added as well. That is the point of this discussion. We need to write a NPOV article that does not give undue weight to one aspect of a 38 year old woman's life. You need to focus on the NPOV aspects of the topic and the undue weight issues and providing balance to the fact that the traffic tickets are only in the news because the election campaign and the other campaign has traffic record issues also. So now the parameters have been laid out.--InaMaka (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There might be a basis for equating the treatment of Noem's traffic violations in Noem's bio with the treatment of Gould's traffic violations in Gould's bio. To talk about treating Gould's traffic violations in Herseth Sandlin's bio, however, is clearly different, and a major step beyond. The information about Noem that you're trying to suppress is a valid part of this article. If you think something was handled incorrectly in the Herseth Sandlin article, or if you have some dirt on her next-door-neighbor's aunt's plumber that you think ought to go in, take it up there. If you think a factual report of this matter is undue weight in this article, counter it by doing some work and providing additional properly cited information about other aspects of Noem's life. JamesMLane t c 05:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let begin with the first comment. I'm not trying to "suppress" anything. Let me assit you in straightening that out. I have never stated that her traffic violations should not be in the article. I have stated over and over again that there is no need for a long laundry list of them. They are a small portion of her life and just because a political campaign is going on--where her driving record is being used as a weapon by Herseth Sandlin does not mean that Wikipedia should treat the topic just as the Herseth Sandlin campaign would. The description needs to be trimmed down. Also, since there is a comparison to the former Congressman Janklow then it is clear that this is a campaign issue. And since it is a campaign issue then there needs to be a counterweight to the overwrought description of her traffic violations in the article. And finally, I appreciate your suggestion that I cite "information about other aspects of Noem's life" but let's say I add info about her love to work in the garden, for example, does not provide a counterweight to the over the top description of her traffic violations. I will edit the section in a manner that deals with real issue that I have outlined.--InaMaka (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The balance was provided by the verbatim quotation of Noem's own response. Because you have now added the political spin of another partisan Republican (Frankenfeld), I'll balance the section by reporting the Democrats' political spin. I have no problem with your other edits. JamesMLane t c 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Janklow thing was pure partisanship. A woman gets a few speeding tickets and she gets compared to a convicted manslaughterer. Wikipedia should be so proud. Maybe I can balance it out by talking about her spinning class. I'm sure if we look hard and long enough we can find a some article on Democratic Underground that points out that Noem's driving record reminds someone somewhere of Charles Manson.--InaMaka (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put the traffic violations in perspective by including mention that the violations took place over a 21 year span. I also agree that the violations should not be given undue weight and support expanding Noem's article. Specifically, I think we should have a section detailing her history in the South Dakota House and expand the political positions section. Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea who Kristi Noem was and came across this page during a Google search. My reaction is that the traffic violations have an undue weight in the article, and strike me as overtly political. Your discussions about other politicians and whether or not their traffic violations are relevant in various Wiki articles only substantiates this position. I would recommend removing the entire traffic violations section. Either that or substantially expand the "Personal Life" section and then mention the traffic violations. Kristi Noem is being considered for a leadership position in the House and you only serve to hurt Wikipedia and do damage to its neutrality claims by continuing this argument. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Democrat and would never vote for Kristi, but believe that this article is not neutral enough.Dbedwards (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

* You are welcome to be bold to edit the page and add in sourced information. Aeonx (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Alumni status

By standard usage, both within and without Wikipedia, a person is an alumnus of a school if they attended the school at all. Graduation is not required. By this convention, which happens to be the consensus position in Wikipedia, Noem is an alumnus of Northern State. The definition that the Northern State Alumni Association apparently uses is not really relevant here -- the category is not a listing of N.S.U. graduates, nor is it a listing of those that the N.S.U. Alumni Association considers alumni. This article says that she hadn't graduated, but she does belong in the category of Northern State Alumni -- please stop removing it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

True or false, Krist Arnold Noem has no college degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.21.71 (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

It's a repository of trivial negative information, that really has no business ("sourced" or not) in a living person's biography. I'd be interested in having a look at other similar biographies, to see if they chronicle the subject's traffic violations, as well as the government subsidies of every organization that they own a piece of. This article needs cleaned up in a HUGE way, but there are people editing it that simply won't let that happen. Lithistman (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Both the traffic violations and the farm subsidies have been covered in the media and are not, in my mind, trivial. The traffic violations in particular generated a large amount of press. Negative information is permissible in biographies, though it should of course be sourced, conveyed in a neutral manner and not be given undue weight. I think the article looks decent the way it is, though it could definitely use a picture and more information on Noem's tenure in the SD House. Gobonobo ^{T C} 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

They are traffic violations and farm subsidies are very common in the midwest. The reason these two things received ANY coverage is because her political opponent tried to make hay out of them. And it's not just that that makes this article a mess. It's just not very well-constructed, and the prose is quite lacking as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithistman (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple. The worldview of the average high-output and/or compulsively vigilant Wiki editor tends to color everything. Do most people care what steps a town takes to "go green," or which colleges have clubs for gay students? Nope. But Wikipedia editors generally care about these things, and therefore Wikipedia articles tend to represent such. It's just a standard shading thing; Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's page indicates she's married to a former congressman, but omits the fact that he's now a lobbyist. And if Stephanie's father had his own entry (he was an SD rep), then the average left-of-center Wiki editor would likely deem that the 17 speeding tickets he got weren't raised in the context of a political race, and therefore were not relevant to his achievements. I think you'll have much better luck getting your non-political concerns addressed, and Wikipedia will continue to be an excellent resource for items not of a political nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.19.11 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The traffic violations were actually brought to light by KELO-TV first when they did background checks on all the major candidates in the state. It was not originally a smear tactic by the Herseth-Sandlin campaign. Though, they certainly latched onto it and used it in their adds eventually. The farm subsidies are notable because of the ammount. Lithistman is right that farm subsidies are extremely common in the Midwest. I should know, I grew up on a [http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=007658020 farm]. You'll notice that these subsidies come no where near the size of the subsidies of [http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=009529125 Racota Valley Ranch]. In fact they are number 18 in [http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=46000&progcode=total&regionname=SouthDakota South Dakota]. sdgjake (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, Wikipedia is a oftentimes a tertiary source. It's not for us to decide whether criticisms of a person are fair or important or not; instead, we have to go by the sources. If a pointless non-issue is a major point of attack in a campaign, or receives substantial media coverage, than it becomes notable. Wikipedia covers a lot of "trivial" but notable political sticking points, like John Kerry's botched Iraq joke, Wesley Clark's comments about McCain, the Obama flag pin issue, and so forth. If Noem's parking tickets are irrelevant, and I believe they are, than the solution is not to excise them from the article. Rather, we should cite another to cite an editorial or notable person that explains that they're irrelevant. Heck, one of the sources has a state Rep. making that very argument.-LtNOWIS (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Tertiary or not, it makes Wikipedia look a bit silly (and very much biased) to list such trivialities in the biography of a notable political figure of whatever party stripe. Simply because some newspaper reports on traffic violations of a candidate, that means that Wikipedia must include it in the biography of that candidate (now representative)? That seems strange to me. Lithistman (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no knowledge or interest in this topic at all(I stumbled across it whilst patrolling recent changes); however in reply to your comment I don't think the article is biased at all, I read the entire article twice, and it is simply reporting on facts based on secondary sources, which I might add are not challenged for authenticity. Further I'm not sure I'd call six notices for failure to appear in court and two arrest warrants, "trivial", especially for a politician. Further again, I handle see how a small subsection of the article is grounds to declare it "a mess". My question to determine your motives Lithistman, is, are you neutral in this article? Aeonx (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course you question my motives. Why not? That's much easier than actually fixing this mess of an article. Lithistman (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a very simple reason why, I insist that you read WP:POV and WP:NPOV before continuing this discussion. If you believe you are neutral (or can edit from a neutral point of view), then you are welcome to be bold to edit the page to make change to improve the quality of the article as you see fit, or even add in sourced information. Aeonx (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop with the side-of-your-mouth accusations. I didn't know who this lady was until I stumbled upon it while looking through various biographies. I don't owe you ANY explanation of my point-of-view, but if you insist on knowing, I'm a Democrat, who voted for Pres. Obama, and will likely vote for him again. I just know a mess of an article when I see one. Now please take your insinuations about my POV elsewhere. It's very annoying to be condescended to. Lithistman (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not asked or insisted for any explanation as to whether you were neutral in any way, I did however inquire as to whether you considered yourself neutral in the article to which a simple yes/no would suffice. I apologize if I have inadvertently given any impression otherwise or acted in a condescending manner. My justification is that I merely formed the opinion based on your comments in this discussion that you were approaching the content of the article from a non-neutral point of view and wanted to draw to your attention that it is Wikipedia policy to write articles from a Neutral point of view. Aeonx (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

One solution would be to move the traffic section from the personal life section to the campaign section, and cover it more from a "the Democrats seized on this issue, the Republicans said it's a stupid distraction from real issues" perspective. But it would look out of place without more campaign details, and might be better suited for the campaign page, which is also short on narrative. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone mentioned that earlier, I believe, and that would be much preferable to the current situaiton, at least in the short run. I won't be doing it, though, as I'm not really that keen on having my neutrality questioned, simply for raising concerns. Lithistman (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life activists

I see that you've added the tag "pro-life activist" to several pages. While these folks are all pretty clearly "pro-life," what makes them activists, other than being elected officials who hold that position? Should everyone who campaigned on health care reform be labeled a "health care activist"? Seems problematic to me. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I categorized the individuals based upon their stated beliefs. That is all one can do. As an editor, how do you decide if someone is sufficiently "activist" to be categorized as such. I take individual at their word. As I pointed out to the editor named "Kelly", the newly elected Congresswoman from South Dakota, Kristi Noem has made it very, very clear that she is hardcore "pro-life". I understand your general concern, but you have not pointed out which one of the people I categorized this way as "problematic." I think you need to be more specific. Which one is "problematic"? And why? Let me ask you: What is inherently wrong with calling someone who campaigned for the health care reform a "health care activist"? If that person ran a political campaign looking to change health care laws then they were "active" in their attempt to provide health care. Why doesn't "health care activist" apply? At what point do you find it ok to make that determination? It doesn't matter because there needs to be an objective standard that determines these things. I choose to take people at their word. I have copied my discussion with "Kelly" below. If you are concerned then you need to open a discussion in the most appropriate place which is the talk page of the individual which you believe doesn't deserve the category and you need to explain why. You have stated that there is a "problem" but you have not outlined what the "problem" is, who the "problem" applies to, and why in that particular's person's article it is a "problem". Merely stating that there is a "problem" is not an actionable concern. As I pointed out to Kelly how can one categorize Martin Sheen as a "pro-life activist", but not Noem, especially after what she has stated on the record concerning abortion. It is not enough for you to simply state that my edits are "problematic" you need to state how you would do them differently and why.--Corbridge (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you decide if someone is an "pro-life activist"? I seem to take the words of Kristi Noem for what they are (clearly activist): "I am, and always have been, pro life. From the miracle of conception to a dignified death, life is precious and should be protected. The federal government has no business forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. If elected to Congress, I will maintain a 100% pro-life voting record."--Corbridge (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to open a discussion on Talk:Kristi Noem. This is potentially controversial...trust me. Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I will take your word for it. However, I will point out that Katherine Harris, Nat Hentoff, and Martin Sheen, who are all pro-life, are categorized as "pro-life activists" even though they do not have even a fraction of Noem's commitment to the issue.--Corbridge (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

<undent>The above conversation is copied from my talk page - I don't have any strong feelings about this either way, just have a lot of experiences with the articles of politicians and I haven't seen this category typically applied to politicians' articles. It seems to be used for people who are primarily known for pro-life activism, as opposed to simply holding pro-life views, and who spend or have spent the majority of their time on this issue, by doing things like protesting, lobbying, or organizing (folks like Marjorie Dannenfelser). For instance, I don't think this cat is applied to articles of politicians better known for outspoken pro-life views, like Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, or Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Michele Bachmann's article does have that specific category. It was added over two years ago in October 2008: Pro-Life Activist category added to the Michele Bachmann article.--Corbridge (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you personally would like only people that are primarily known for pro-life activism but your personal standard does not explain how people such as Martin Sheen, Katherine Harris, and Nat Hentoff end up being categorized that way. From my perspective, if Sheen has that category but Sarah Palin doesn't then Palin and Huck should have that category. As for your comment that Palin, Huck and Bachmann are better known than Noem, I don't disagree, but whether they are better known really has no bearing on whether Noem should be in the category. The focus should be whether Noem fits in the category. And for me it is clear that she is "pro-life" and it is clear from her outspoken comments concerning abortion on the campaign trail that she is as committed to the issue as much as Sheen, Harris, and Hentoff (and quite possibly Palin and Huck). The category applies. From reviewing the others in the category there is no requirement that "pro-life activism" be the "primary" activity of the individual. That would be Kelly's standard, but a quick review of the individuals in the cat it is clear that the vast majority of them don't fit that standard. And the practice--as far as it goes--looks to be based primarily on whether the person is outspoken in their pro-life beliefs and by that standard Noem fits.--Corbridge (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Primarily" has nothing to do with it. Sourcing does. Otherwise, its original research, specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Regarding your examples, I have looked into them and found: Hentoff is known as an activist in multiple sources. Sheen has even been arrested for his activism. Harris is not an activist, and I have removed the CAT. The "practice" should follow Wikipedia policy, which is that if there is a reliable source (or preferably more than one) which describe the person as a pro-life activist, the CAT can be added. Otherwise, it violates WP:NOR and should be removed. I will not be repeating this across Wikipedia wherever you are waging this edit war, Corbridge; but find sources or drop the subject, on all these BLPs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I did not come up with the "primarily" idea. I agree with the source issue. Also, you are wrong to assume that I added the cat to Hentoff, Sheen or Harris. I'm not so don't state an untruth as if it is a fact.--Corbridge (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said. I never stated you added the cat to those articles, merely that they were your examples, which can clearly be seen in this discussion page section. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have done some checking, and apologies to Kelly - I was in error, and Kelly's instincts were dead on. It is indeed important whether a person is known primarily as a pro-life activist, per instructions on the Category page not challenged in five years. Per Category:Pro-life_activists "It is for activists who are primarily notable due to their pro-life activism. This category is not a list of anyone who is pro-life." I am removing the cat. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Farm ownership years

Thedbu (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The citation offered for percentage of farm ownership only supports that she owned that percentage through 2008, not 2009.

Attends SDSU?

Regardless of the definition of "alumni" (or "alumna" in this case) -- I find it hard to believe that Noem "currently attends" South Dakota State University if she is also currently serving as a member of Congress in DC. Is she currently enrolled? Has she put her education on hold while she serves in Congress? Is she taking classes online? If she's taking online classes, might that be better described as "enrolled" rather than "attending"? Arbor832466 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

I've removed some content from this article that is in conflict with the policy of WP:PROMOTION. In several instances, declarative statements about Noem's positions or actions -- which clearly do belong -- are followed by quotes from Noem that make the article read more like a campaign site than an encyclopedia. Arbor8 (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. That is not true. The quotes are directly on-point outlining here position. The article does not read like a campaign site that is simply not true.--Corbridge (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Corbridge, it is true. Should we do a WP:RFC? Arbor8 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Your suggestion is way too premature. You have not provided any reasons for your thinking. You just state that you don't like something and that's that. What is the issue?--Corbridge (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of issues, but for the moment I'll confine myself to one: There is one sentence about the Rapid City Journal editorial that was critical of a particular vote of Noem's. The editorial is not quoted. Following that is, quite rightly, a sentence or maybe two about a column Noem wrote in response. Her position is clearly described. But following THAT is a lengthy direct quotation from Noem's column, which shouldn't be there. The fact that she wrote it and her position are notable. The inclusion of a hefty chunk of the column is WP:PROMOTION, particularly seeing as the initial RCJ editorial is not quoted at all. Arbor8 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. That's not true. Promotion applies to when someone is using Wikipedia to sell product, etc. That is not the situation here at all. You might not like what she had to say about the RCJ, but that is not relevant. Promotion does not apply. The RCJ criticism is in the article and Noem response that is in the actual article is only a fraction of the criticisms that Noem had for RCJ in response. The quote at the bottom is needed for Noem to point out of the problems with RCJ's original criticism.

Promotion can apply to a politician, cause, or a number of other things. Whether I like what the RCJ ed board said or what Noem said is immaterial. The point is, it doesn't belong and you have not made a case for including it. If you can better encapsulate Noem's response to the editorial without crossing the line of WP:UNDUE then go ahead, but following "The RCJ wrote a critical editorial stating X" with "Noem responded to the criticism by stating Y and here is verbatim a full third of her column" is not the answer. Arbor8 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, not so fast. I read through all of the points under promotion and none of them applied. You have not stated which of those points applies to this article and how. You are now trying out "undue weight" because it seems that you have not been able to provide an example of how this article, as currently written, is "promotion". How does promotion apply to this article, what parts and in what way. Now, just slow down, you made the claim now you need to back it up. Pulling out another objection is not support for the original objection of "promotion". Where is the promotion? Where is it in the article? Please provide a solid, concrete example of what you claim. You have not done that. Where is it? How? Please outline in detail. This discussion needs to be about the specific facts of the article as it is written. Please provide those specifics. You have stated your claim in generality now please provide some meat to your claim. Where? How? And when you are completely done with that then you need to provide the specifics for the undue claim.--Corbridge (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Corbridge, since civil, content-based discussion has proven to be impossible with you, I'm going to seek some sort of editorial intervention or mediation. I'll be sure to post a link on your talk page. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Unbelivable! I have asked you to provide solid, concrete examples of how "promotion" applies to the article and you claim civility. I think that indicates a lack of support for your position.--Corbridge (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Full quotes should be avoided where possible as they tend to clutter text. Alternatives are to summarize the quote and/or take relevant excerpts and use elipses. I would suggest for you two to take the current summary in the article and discuss specifics of what isn't captured yet and modifying appropriately as a compromise to the previous all-or-nothing dialogue. Consider your average reader that wants a relevant summary; the reader that wants details can open up the references. The quote param in a citation template is meant to combat dead links by having a string to search on the Internet to find the lost article. A sentence or two is sufficient there, and a full multi-sentence quote is not needed—Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Corbridge, what do you feel is missing from this description of the editorial and Noem's response? Arbor8 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have much disagreement with the way that it is currently written, but it is not a completely accurate portrayal of the situation. The vote would not have funded the bridge. It was a procedural vote and no one denies that fact. It was not a vote to fund anything. It was a vote to move legislation to a different committee. The phrase "a procedural vote that would have funded the so-called bridge" is a total mischaracterization of the facts. It states "would have funded" and that is not true. There I have provided you with a valid concrete example of how the text is wrong and needs to be fixed. Now, you need to give me a concrete, solid example of how the article violates the "promotion" claim that you made above. You just can't make claims then refuse to provide support for the claim. I am asking again for you to provide a support for your claim. Also, there is a second problem your version of the paragraph. You removed here direct quote from the quote section of the citation. Every time I have placed a direct quotation of Noem in the article you remove it and you state in the edit summary field something to the effect of "redundant" "unnecessary" "irrelevant" "promotion" etc. You have removed each and every quote that I have placed in the article. There is no rule in Wikipedia that supports this position. I have asked you to stop removing the quotes and you have accused me of civility. Your claim of civility against me do not support your edits of removing all quotes from Noem.--Corbridge (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a better characterization would be that the vote in question was to send the bill, which included the bridge funding, back to committee, while a vote against would have brought it to an immediate floor vote. This article isn't about Noem but it explains the vote we're talking about here. So Noem did NOT vote to fund the bridge, but she DID vote to keep the bill alive (by sending it back to committee) rather than allowing it to be voted on by the full House immediately, where it would not have passed. Is there a less cumbersome way to phrase that? (I'm not being sarcastic -- I'm really asking)

As to my concerns about promotion, basically I thought (and still think) that 1-2 sentences about the RCJ editorial followed by 6-7 sentences of Noem's rebuttal is NPOV because it gives undue weight to one side of the argument. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Arbor8 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rapid City Journal criticized Noem for a procedural vote that would have funded the so-called bridge to nowhere. Noem responded in a column published by the Journal, characterizing the criticism as a partisan attack and asserting that the procedural vote had no impact on policy or funding for the project, which she does not support.

• Corbridge, what Bagumba was saying in his third opinion is that, in general, Noem's quotes aren't needed. There's really no need to quote Noem in the footnotes, if a short summary of Noem's response is in the main text. (The same goes for practically any quotes -- for instance, there's no need to quote the Rapid City Journal in the footnote, just give a short summary.) If a reader is interested in the exact quote -- that's what the citation in the reference is for. Please take the quotes out of the footnotes -- the only reason to have any part of the text of a reference in a footnote is to locate the cited material in case it disappears or is moved. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is that we are discussing this edit, which is inserting a multi-sentence quote from Noem's column into the body of the article. We actually talked about the quote field in refs here and were unable to reach a resolution. I agree with you -- the quote field in refs shouldn't be used to do an end run around WP:UNDUE. Arbor8 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, the accusation is incivility, not civility. I'd be quite pleased to be accused of civility. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, do we have to seemingly record every one of her votes? We're a encyclopedia, not a newspaper, or her campaign website. (Or for that matter, neither are we an opposition website.) Myself, unless somehow there is a significant political fuss (and a newspaper editorial is not a significant politcal fuss), I wouldn't include anything about the votes on the bridge or about the continuing budget resolution, and I would find a way to shorten the political positions section through summarization. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I removed the information on the bridge because it seemed to be a short term political push and pull. Arbor is the editor that placed the bridge info in the article in the first place--without any response by Noem. I then removed the information entirely finding it to be unimportant and Arbor then put it back in. I'm willing to shorten the budget vote info and move it to the political position area. But my real opinion about the bridge info is that it does not belong in the first place, but if it is going to be in there (remember the source of the whole "fuss" was a press release put together by the Democratic Party of South Dakota) then we need to let Noem respond. The vote does not "fund" anything and the section makes a bald face incorrect claim that the procedural vote "funds" the bridge in Alaska and that somehow Noem is at fault. It is ludicrous and partisan and not encyclopedic.--Corbridge (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, when I first included a mention of the editorial, Noem had not yet responded. I still lean toward inclusion because when a major paper within the district with a historically conservative editorial board comes out so strongly against a Congresswoman they had previously endorsed, it seems notable. But that said, I don't think leaving it out entirely would be NPOV, so I am fine with that outcome as well (although I fail to see the relevance of whether the RCJ was alerted to the vote by the SD Democratic Party or anyone else). Arbor8 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

However, to ArglebargleIV's point, I do think we need to address the way the quote field is being used/abused in this article. Arbor8 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we need to address how the quote field is (to use scare quotes as you did above) a valid field and I think we need to address why you believe that all direct quotes need to be removed from the article, which is not based upon any rule in Wikipedia, but merely your preference of style. I do think you need to provide solid, concrete examples of how the article violates "promotion" which is a claim that you have made but you have not provide any solid, concrete examples of it. Also, I think we do need to talk about what support you provide for your claim that the quote filed cannot be used at all. I think we do need to talk about why the quote filed exists if we cannot use it. I think we do need to talk about how can the quote field be helpful to fix dead links if your premise is correct that all quotes must be removed. I think we do need to focus on what the third party opinion you asked for supports the use the quote field in citations but yet you claim that they are being "abused". I think we do need to talk about why the section that we are discussing is even in the article when it is partisan, unencyclopedic, is given undue weight, and is presented in an non-NPOV manner. We do need to discuss the issue that I raised above about how it violated NPOV because it provides a false sense of what exactly happened, being that the version currently in the article falsely claims that the procedural vote would lead directly to funding the bridge in Alaska, which of course is not even close to reality. We do need to discuss why you will not response to that NPOV issue.--Corbridge (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, will respond to Corbridge directly after this.) I lean against inclusion. My analysis :

Partisan or not doesn't matter -- and our personal opinion of whether the attack was partisan matters, if possible, even less than that.

Whether a normal political criticism is ludicrous isn't for us to decide. (Abnormal ones, like this can be categorized by a consensus of the editors as ludicrous, though.) If a wide variety of sources see the attack as ludicrous, we can mention that the attack was seen as ludicrous by such sources.

What does matter is significance. (Notability, if you wish, but notability doesn't quite cover all the bases that significance does.) Unless there is a reasonable variety of sources that see Noem's procedural vote as significantly affecting her, or see it as a major bone of contention, there's probably little point in putting it in the article. I don't see any significance in this particular vote -- although if the sources are there, I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong.

Apart from that, if it was determined that we need to say something about that vote in the article, I'd go with a modified form of Corbridge's suggestion above :

The Rapid City Journal criticized Noem for a procedural vote that would have funded the so-called bridge to nowhere. In a column published by the Journal, Noem characterized the editorial as a partisan attack, asserting that the procedural vote had no impact on policy or funding for the project, which she does not support.

I would not put quotes in the references -- summarizing both the Journal's and Noem's argument in a sentence each is enough -- with a sentence, Noem has her response represented, and the details and actual columns are available through the citations.

The larger point -- there's no demonstrated need for quotes in the references for this article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bagumba's given some pretty good reasons, based on accepted guidelines, why we probably shouldn't have most of the quotes in the article. He's also explained the purpose of the (rarely-used, incidentally) quote field as enabling searching for alternate citations in case the original citation disappears -- it's not there to store full quotations, especially when summary sentences are there. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Corbridge, please stop being sarcastic and unproductive. I didn't use scare quotes, I italicized to avoid confusion. I have repeatedly explained to you -- on this talk page and elsewhere -- why I believe your use of the quote field is inappropriate, and have been met over and over again with accusations, mischaracterizations and generally combative comments. The way you are using the quote field does not improve the article it runs contrary to consensus. Arbor8 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Please stop it. You never concede anything. All you do is explain to me your belief, your opinion. You treat your opinion as if it is fact. You assume that all concensus agrees with whatever opinion you have. You do not provide support for your positions and I ask for your support all the time. When I do ask for support you claim that I am being uncivil. Your comments about my comments are flat out wrong. My paragraph above was not "unproductive and sarcastic". My paragraph above asked you again to provide support for your claim that the article is "promotional". You refuse to response to that issue. You refuse to provide support for your claim. My paragraph above was not "sarcastic and unproductive" because I pointed out again that in your version of the bridge issue you categorically state that the procedural vote would lead to funding of the bridge which is not true. It is not supported by any article in any newspaper anywhere on this earth and instead of responding to that fact you call my paragraph "sarcastic and unproductive." If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you absolutely refuse to explain why the bridge info needs to be written in a way that mischaracterizes the vote. If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you absolutely refuse to explain why the bridge info needs to be in the article at all. If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you refuse to respond to my concern that the bridge information is written in a non-NPOV manner. You are just over and over again calling my comments "sarcastic and unproductive". Please focus on the article and stop focusing on me. Please provide concrete, solid, constructive responses the issues that just outlined again for the third time.--Corbridge (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please Be cautious of using "you" we can all assume good faith unless its painfully apparent otherwise. Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Per Wikipedia:Link_rot#Alternate_methods, I've pared down the citation. I would suggest to move past whether inclusion of a quote was "promotion" or not. The main points to consider are if a full quote is/isn't being given for one POV, is there a valid reason why the same is not being done for another side? Personally, I would try not to use full quotes unless the quote is so succinct that a summary is the same size as the quote to begin with. And if one of you is not happy with a summary, quote the specific point that you feel needs to be captured, and collaboratively offer specific alternative text until a consensus is reached. Being a disinterested party, and reading mostly the tone of the discussion and not the content of the article, I think it needs to be realized that everyone comes in with a bias and that is OK as long as it gets presented neutrally once you are made aware of other perspectives though civil discussion. Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. The quote field in the citation has a purpose. No, the purpose is not to save whole quotes, but it IS used to track down an alternative version of the link if and when it goes dead. I have no problem with that use--as it is completely in line with Wikipedia guidelines. However the claim of Arbor that all quotes must be removed which is what Arbor has been doing over and over again is not consistent with what you, Bagumba, have written above and it is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Also, Arbor keeps claiming that using the quote field in the citations is not in line with consensus is just not based in fact. I do not see any consensus here on that issue. That claim is just a red herring.--Corbridge (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?

Did we ever reach any sort of consensus on this? The refs section of this article now has a higher word count than the article itself. Arbor8 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Go with Wikipedia:Link_rot#Alternate_methods. User:Corbridge agreed. Do you have objections? be bold and assume silence means consensus with everyone else Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated clearly before, I agree as long as Arbor does not take that agreement to mean that all quote fields must wiped clean. As I stated before, wiping the quote fields clean is Arbor's preference only, and it is not a hard and fast Wikipedia as was claimed by Arbor. The quote field has a purpose and it can be used, even if it is not the personal preference of a particular editor.--Corbridge (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me, so long as we make an effort to use "the most succinct and relevant material possible that preserves the context of the reference," per Bagumba's link above. Corbridge: Again, please try to confine your comments to content and edits rather than editors. Arbor8 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I had no other choice. I had to make sure that we all understand very, very clearly what the consensus is. It is a waste of time and effort when there is clear misunderstanding of the consensus and what the rules state. I will point out once again that the rules of Wikipedia and the consensus agrees that to completely wipe out all quotes from the reference quote field is not what conforms to the rules or to consensus. I will point out once again that any previous argument that the quote field could not be used or is only to be used after a link goes dead is not an argument that conforms with the rules or consensus. Eliminating the quotes in the quote field will not work.--Corbridge (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You always have a choice. You can choose to talk about the issues or about the people.
There was a consensus, I do believe, to shorten the quotes in the references -- they don't need to be as long as they are to provide "searchability". I'm going to start shortening them today. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I had no choice. Now, let's focus on the issues. There is no consensus to remove all quotes from the quote fields. The claim that there is a concensus to remove all quotes from the article violates not only concensus, but more important violates the rules of Wikipedia. I repeat, eliminating the quotes in the quote field will not work.--Corbridge (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Believes"

The word 'believes' is not always a weasel word. It depends on context. No need to remove the word entirely from the article. Arbor8 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

We could talk about Kristi Noem's political stands, but I am curious to how voters of South Dakota could overlook her past history of "law breaking." On August 27, 2010, the Rapid City Journal wrote this about her:

"During the past 10 years, Noem has collected 10 speeding tickets along with citations for not wearing a seat belt and driving without her license. Noem's most recent violation, according to records kept by the South Dakota Unified Judicial System, was driving 94 mph in 75 mph zone on Interstate 29 in Moody County. She paid $130 in fines and court costs for that ticket on Feb. 19, a few days after she officially announced her campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives. And Noem's history of speeding and other violations goes back beyond the last decade. State records going back to November 1989 show Noem with a total of 20 speeding tickets, plus additional violations for failure to stop at an intersection and invalid license plates. Noem also has been sent reminder notices and had warrants issued for overdue fines, which she later settled."

Read more: http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_5fdda8ca-b18a-11df-8518-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1TOIIyaWg

These might be "minor" offenses, but they do show a pattern of contempt for the law. Frankly, only someone with a great deal of personal conceit and arrogance--and lust for power (see Sarah Palin)--thinks that laws are inconveniences that apply to others, but not to themselves. This seems to be a particular trait of Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constans1 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Alma Mater dispute

I'm hoping we can resolve a months-long edit war among several users regarding Congresswoman Kristi Noem's alumni status. The facts, so far as I can tell, are not in dispute. Noem graduated from Hamlin High School, attended classes at SDSU and elsewhere and put her education on indefinite hold after her father's death, and is neither enrolled in nor attending college classes while serving as a member of Congress in DC.

The issue, it seems, is whether "Hamlin High School" or "SDSU" should appear after "alma mater" in Ms. Noem's infobox. I'm not partial to one or the other -- I have edited this article in the past, but have not previously entered this dispute. But the constant edit warring needs to stop.

Thanks in advance to everyone taking the time to look this over! Arbor832466 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the options I tried, which was reverted at some point, was to simply leave the field blank. (As I believe I pointed out in one of my edit summaries, Abraham Lincoln's article gives no alma mater.) I could go either way on what actually goes into the field if one is kept. If someone goes around telling everyone that he went to Harvard, when it turned out he flunked out after on semester, that probably doesn't qualify as an alma mater, in my eyes. However, if someone spent a great deal of time at a school but didn't technically receive a degree (or in Noem's case had a very good reason for leaving) then I wouldn't mind point the college in as an alma mater. My primary concern with the edit warring was my general distaste of situations in which a steady stream of anons rolls by, with curiously similar edits, at similar intervals, ignoring the rather obvious in-text note about changing the entry without a consensus, and none of them using the talk page. AlexiusHoratius 17:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason the field is blank in Lincoln's case is because he taught the law to himself. He did not attend an institution.--Corbridge (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it's fair to accuse anonymous users of not using the talk page; many are unaware of its existence or simply lack the time to leave comments in it. Regardless, I don't believe it is fair to say that SDSU is Noem's alma mater as she has not graduated. Likewise, it is unfair to list it as Hamlin High School, as she has completed some college coursework. However, by allowing the alma mater to remain SDSU leaves readers with the impression that she has obtained a four-year degree, which she has not. I say it would be better to default to Hamlin High School, as that is her highest level of education received, or to simply leave the section blank. 75.72.166.124 (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)RLR 8 February 2011

Here's the deal: if you are admitted to an institution and attended it for any length of time - even one day - you are an alumnus of that institution, period. This is not subject to dispute - it is what the word means. For instance, here is the highly respected Merriam-Webster dictionary (an arm of Britannica): ALUMNUS - a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university. Here we have ALMA MATER - a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated. OR, not AND. And this is the way I have always heard it used and no other. Now. If the person only attended one class for one day, I suppose a case could be made that calling it it her "alma mater" would be misleading. If she completed even one entire course, there is absolutely no case whatsoever for not calling it her alma mater, and in fact it would be incorrect not to. And in future 75.72.166.124: I would say that in disputes between oneself and dictionary, the dictionary usually has the upper hand. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

75.72.166.124, I didn't mean to sound didactic. I understand where you are coming from, don't blame you for your stance, and appreciate your contributions to and engagement with the Wikipedia. I does seem odd to use the same word for someone who attended one class and someone who was graduated. But it what the word means and how it is correctly used. Look at it this way - you learned something new! Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's truly a shame that in a discussion about a clearly disputed section of a Wikipedia page that a high ranking editor, such as yourself, feels free to squelch an opposing view in the manner that you did, Herostratus. I did not say anything that merited that sort of response from an editor and I am ashamed to see that Wikipedia clearly lets their editors cross political lines in this manner. Enjoy your future power trips and the end of civil conversation on the internet. 75.72.166.124 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of being devil's advocate, here are some dictionary definitions that vary from the ones given above.

The school or university from which one graduated. The term also refers to a school's official song: “The reunion began with everyone singing the alma mater.” From Latin, meaning “nurturing mother.” -- American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

1. a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated. -- Dictionary.com Unabridged

This definition is very correct, but it does not support TechnoSymbiosis' conclusion. What it does show is that sometimes it is usually the school that one graduates from, but it does not need to be. Also, Wiktionary defines alma mater as a school from which one graduated or attended. Also, there is a fun category in Wikipedia where Wikipedia editors list themselves according to their alma mater and alma mater is specifically defined as a school where one "attends or attended". Example There is just not much evidence out there that supports the idea that SDSU cannot be listed as Noem's alma mater. The overwhelming evidence supports it.--Corbridge (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The definition may not be as clear-cut as it seems. This is an article about an American individual; what is the standard American definition of the term? Are there any guidelines from relevant WikiProjects that may help? If the line is from a template, does the template talk page hint at how the field should be used? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is precedent all over Wikipedia for this situation. Look at Al Gore. Gore attended Vanderbilt University, both as a divinity student and as a law school. He did not finish either of these programs. However, Wikipedia lists his Vanderbilit as one of his alma maters. All that a alma mater is is a place where someone went to school. There is no requirement that the person graduate. Another very good example of this fact is the article about Bill Clinton. Clinton attended Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar, but he did not graduate. In turn, Wikipedia lists Oxford University as one of his alma maters.--Corbridge (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't come to any particular conclusion above, Corbridge, except perhaps that the definition of the term varies in the wild (which it does). I was simply providing thoughts and questions that may help other editors determine the correct solution. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Barack Obama, attended but did not graduate from Occidental College, but OC is listed as one of the alma maters.--Corbridge (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Idea

I was over looking at Bobby Schilling and I think his info box offers a good example of what we could do here -- list her HS followed by "South Dakota State University (attended)." Thoughts? Arbor832466 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with that. Both schools are her alma maters.--Corbridge (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. sdgjake (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Made the change. Arbor832466 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The consensus, as I understand it above, was list her HS followed by "South Dakota State University (attended)." Please discuss here if you disagree, rather than reverting against consensus. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply agreed to the notion that we list both of her schools. There is no need for the phrase "attended" because it is assumed that an alma mater is a school that you attended. Why would SDSU be listed at all if Noem did not attend it? The phrase is unnecessary. It is just attempt to point out that she did not graduate. The fact that she did not graduate is outlined in the article. It is not necessary to repeat it. I don't understand why this is even a question. I'm somewhat baffled by why anyone would want the phrase in there. The school would not be listed in the category "Alma Mater" if she did not attend it, why would you want the phrase "attended" in there? I'm baffled. It is totally unnecessary. I'm just baffled. It is not needed.--Corbridge (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Corbridge, there's no need to be catty. I believe "attended" should be included to signify that she did not graduate (an impression that could easily be left by listing SDSU as an alma mater) without making it seem as if she dropped out, which is not the case either. Perhaps we should not list alma mater in the infobox at all? Arbor8 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

She attended SDSU that makes SDSU her alma mater. The infobox has a slot for the alma mater SDSU is an alma mater. SDSU is listed as her alma mater. There is no need to say "attended" because if she did not attend it would not be her alma mater, but she did attend and it is her alma mater. Now, if some does not know what alma mater means (mere attendance) then they might have the impression that she graduated. But the article explains the situation. The infobox does not say "School from which she graduated." There is no consensus to state "attended". I'm baffled whom are you in consensus with? Me? I disagree with you. Please stop falling back on the artificial concept of consensus (it is artificial because there is no consensus) and explain why we need the word "attended." I'm baffled on why you will not respond to the fact that the word "attended" is redundant and unnecessary. There has been tons of discussion outlining in great detail what alma mater means, it is school that one attended. That individual may or may not have graduated. It is not necessary for them to graduate to call that school there alma mater. I'm baffled on why you have explained why we go out of our way to mark Noem's infobox "attended" when we know, without a doubt that she attended SDSU. That is fact. We do not have to use the word "attended" because the day she walked in that door she became an alumnus. My alumni association has 25% of its paid members made up of people who attended but did not graduate. She attended. She is an alumnus. The word "attended" is not necessary. You have made a case for it other than there may be someone who does not know what the word means and for those people who do not know what alma mater means we have to add a redundant and unnecessary word to the infobox. There is no consensus. You cannot say it is. I'm truly baffled why anyone would want to put that in there. She attended SDSU. SDSU is her alma mater.--Corbridge (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Alma mater" means attended or graduated. The fact that she did not graduate is covered in the article. There's really no need to say "(attended)" in the infobox. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is. I voice the opinion that it should be listed as attended. Often times people just read the infobox and not the article and if they read it like it is they think she graduated from the University. In my view not having the phrase attended is just ignoring facts in order to make the Congresswoman look better.--Politicsislife (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems the consensus is to include the word attended, and all colleges, so I have done this.KeptSouth (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing *some* quotes

Per the above discussion, I removed some of the quotes that don't directly relate to the content of this article. My intention isn't to strip out all of the quotes in the article, and I didn't do that. I also explained, one by one, why I removed the particular quotes that I did. Please don't revert without discussing here. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbor, all of the quotes in the article were removed. That was overkill. It is ok to quote the subject of the article. There is no rule of Wikipedia of any kind that justifies removing all of the quotes.--Corbridge (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the quotes in the quote field of the refs. Some of those I removed, some I truncated, and some I left. As far as the quotes in the text, there's no rule mandating removal, but there is also no rule that says they should stay. I think I explained my reasoning pretty well, both here and in edit summaries. Arbor8 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, whether there are quotes or not is a matter of style. There is no reason to remove all of the quotes.--Corbridge (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning. Repeatedly. Whether you agree with me is your prerogative and we can debate that, but please don't assert that there is "no reason" for the edits I have carefully explained. Arbor8 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a valid reason to rip all quotes from the body of the article. It makes the article unbalanced. We can and should quote the subject of articles directly once a while. It is unreasonable not to. Let them speak for themselves. That is part of the essence of being fair in the presentation. It is unfair, unbalanced and not neutral to re-state every single thing that the subject says or believes. It is not done in the Obama article because it is not NPOV.--Corbridge (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless the quote itself is notable (ie, if a subject was praised or criticized for saying a particular thing), or if it illuminates an issue better than a paraphrase can, then I agree, it should be included. In this case, though, I don't think those criteria are met, and I thought -- and still think -- the quotes I removed fall on the wrong side of WP:NOTNEWS Arbor8 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, it seems to me that many of the quotes discussed have been put in the footnotes. I plan on doing some simple cleaning—if the article already paraphrases the quote in the footnote, I will remove it. If it is fluff, I may also remove it. I would like to note there is a lot of linkrot now, and I will be cleaning some of it.KeptSouth (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Does her last name rhyme with "gnome" or with "name?" I'm sure people who witnessed the campaign firsthand know, but people outside of South Dakota have never, to my knowledge, been offered any hint. ak4mc (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Its like gnome 97.114.135.219 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ak4mc (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kristi Noem. 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/20100916213739/http://www.sdsos.gov/electionsvoteregistration/pastelections_electioninfo10_SW.shtm to http://www.sdsos.gov/electionsvoteregistration/pastelections_electioninfo10_SW.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130728154415/http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/50875/group/homepage/ to http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/50875/group/homepage/

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} 12:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kristi Noem. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110109082211/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/cq/20101103/pl_cq_politics/politics000003758260 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20101103/pl_cq_politics/politics000003758260

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

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} 00:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kristi Noem. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.argusleader.com/article/20100609/NEWS/6090318
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120323095434/http://www.ksfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=12711303 to http://www.ksfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=12711303

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)