![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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 farm. You'll notice that these subsidies come no where near the size of the subsidies of Racota Valley Ranch. In fact they are number 18 in 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Probably best to open a discussion on Talk:Kristi Noem. This is potentially controversial...trust me. Kelly hi! 02:22, 1 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)
<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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 1. a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated. -- Dictionary.com Unabridged
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Fine by me. sdgjake (talk) 17:25, 25 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)
- 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)
- "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)
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)
- 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.
- 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. 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)
- Corbridge, it is true. Should we do a WP:RFC? Arbor8 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This template must be substituted.