Jump to content

Talk:Kristi Noem/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

4th of July at Mt Rushmore 2020

The text, or link, of her speech should be included in article. Wikipietime (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

I sourced a critique of a coronavirus study to RT and clearly identified it as a source of propaganda, not to be taken as fact. Activist (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Info box image

The manual of style calls for a portrait image, and asks that the best quality of image be used, as indicated in the manual of style under Image quality.

  • Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter. For example:
  • An image of a white-tailed eagle is useless if the bird appears as a speck in the sky.
  • A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people.

See articles on Diane Feinstein and Elizabeth Warren for examples of proper image selection. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems like you are ignoring the words "not with other people." That's not a call for a portrait image, it's a call for a solo image. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Well it's both, isn't it? It does not have to ask for a portrait image, or give the guidance to use the best quality image available, but it does. We cannot ignore the guidelines. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The standard for American political officials articles is to use the most recent “official” photo, even if the image is 20 years old. Only time that changes is if there is a consensus for that specific page. Her official Congress portraits look better than the new one being placed in the infobox. Corky 01:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and this image is horrible to use in the infobox -- it's blurry and it's not a good facial expression. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


The choice of picture reveals a great deal about the person who selected it. Kristi is a beautiful so the selected picture appears to have been doctored. It doesn't look like her at all.

Gosh, I wonder what could have motivated such petty meanness.

Current edit dispute

The choice of picture reveals a great deal about the person who selected it. Kristi is a beautiful so the selected picture appears to have been doctored. It doesn't look like her at all.

Gosh, I wonder what could have motivated such petty meanness.


@PFVF: I'm about to revert your edit for a second time. Its relevance to the article is dubious (see WP:NOTNEWS), it seems to espouse a point of view (see WP:NPOV), and as I said in my previous edit summary, the grammar and wording make it very difficult to understand. Because you have reverted the removal of your edit three times and been warned on your talk page, this is likely considered a WP:EDITWAR. Please be aware that I am attempting to resolve the issue on this talk page, and that adding back your edit without discussion may lead to a block for edit warring. ezlev signed this. talk 21:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ezlev, I am brand new to Wikipedia. I don't know the procedures, which you obviously do as you harass me with all the buzz words and strong-arm tactics of a bully. What I do know, however, is that you consider yourself a grammar cop while you make pompous "grammar correction" edits that introduce grammatical errors where none existed! You also show no understanding of the difference between grammar and style. But, most importantly, you show evidence of someone too ignorant to know how ignorant she is. I don't know why you want to leave standing an attribution to Governor Noem that is obsolete -- that she no longer believes, and that she specifically has updated -- but your refusal to allow the update is VANDALISM. Such vandalism does not further the mission of Wikipedia to increase understanding (in this case of Governor Noem's own statements about international trade, particularly the China trade agreement and its benefits to American agriculture) in truth.

I don't know all the procedures to warn you to stop (in all of your personalities) because I am new here, and I haven't hung out at Wikipedia as you obviously do. But, if you persist, I will find out how to get as many of your abusive, harassing, obstructionist personalities blocked as I can. PFVF (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)PFVF

@PFVF: Thanks for your response. The technical abbreviations I used in my initial message are also links to Wikipedia policy pages, which you might want to consider looking at, as my motivation for reverting your edit had very little to do with its content and more to do with the policies I mentioned. Based on your explanation of the reason for your edit, which I appreciate that you were willing to share, I have some suggestions: I'd recommend that you use the only the second source you linked, make a much shorter addition to the article, and be careful to avoid incorporating a point of view or straying from the topic of trade. Something along the lines of "In November 2019, she praised President Trump's effort to establish a new trade agreement with China" would probably be suitable. I'm happy to discuss this more here if you'd like, or you can feel free to make your revised edit. (As a side note, and I mean this as respectfully as possible, there is no obstructionist conspiracy against you and I am an entirely different person from Snooganssnoogans.) ezlev signed this. talk 02:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ezlev, content is everything, especially when it is quotations from the subject of the Wiki page on the matter at hand; the Governor's viewpoint is totally germane! Also, I would ask in future -- after noting the proliferation of grammatical and punctuation errors in this reply of yours -- that you show more care in deeming to "correct" others' grammar. Please take the time to LISTEN, to hear, and to read references before you claim something is "unreadable." Maybe you don't understand because you don't comprehend, rather than because you bear animus. We'll see. PFVF (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)PFVF

Significant deletion

@Snooganssnoogans: could you explain your recent deletion of 1710 bytes from the article? Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why it's important that she withdrew from being an elector? The text just says that she was designated as an elector but withdrew, and then explains how the SD electors cast the SD EC votes and how SD has traditionally voted (which is irrelevant to her). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of her travel via state private plane to right-wing political events, and her application to purchase a new $5 million dollar jet. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 refusal to acknowledge legitimacy of 2020 election

AP News: "Noem refuses to say whether Biden victory was free and fair"[1]. Text on this topic should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Energy and Environment subsection changes

Out of respect for an IP user 174.254.200.18, I am proposing the deletion of the sentence in the subsection Energy and Environment: "For this policy viewpoint, the online Vice magazine in 2017 identified her as a climate change denier."
Looking for consensus here Several organizations and media outlets assign politicians certain titles, in this case "climate change denier." Not sure why this one is singled out here; this is the only content included in this section that coincides with the paragraph topic.
I would also propose removing that particular paragraph (first paragraph) from this subsection, as it pertains to one singular vote without detailed explanation. The paragraph exclusively relies on the text of the legislation per the Vice citation. The other paragraphs in this subsection cite more than just the text of legislation, including:

"She pointed out..." "She helped..." "she says..."

While Noem has taken thousands of votes during her congressional tenure; cherry picking one singular vote without additional content does not seem worth including. If there were further supporting evidence of this stance, it would be appropriate to keep this paragraph.
19:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To further emphasize my suggestion, just because an organization decides to designate a title/name an individual, does that mean that it needs to be included in Wikipedia? If so, it would make sense to add a subsection about an individual deemed a "COVID denier," "ISIS sympathizer," "war mongerer," or any other designated nickname/title by any organization? It's difficult to see how the inclusion of this here is helpful towards the article as a whole, or the referenced subsection. It solely relies on the language of the text of one bill which Noem supported, and construes such vote as grounds to be a "climate change denier," with no other evidence. Seems to me WP:Cherrypicking and WP:NOTOPINION apply here. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Georgia senators

The only arguable thing about the quote around Georgia senators is whether it should be in the 2020 election section. Arguably you could create another section for it but it doesn't really seem necessary. there are certainly no WP:ONUS or WP:NOTNEWS issues. Pipsally NLI.86.99.87.85 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely NOTNEWS, and it has practically nothing to do with the 2020 election. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Come off it. It was a rerun of the 2020 elections in Georgia, it's fine in this part to avoid unnecessary section bloat. In the context of the 2020 election such contrasts in her behaviour are entirely appropriate to record, when her words and actions are so clearly opposed. Pipsally NLI.86.99.87.85 (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The remarks were noteworthy, illustrative of Noem's rhetoric and political style, and received a fair degree of coverage. It doesn't necessarily need to be in the 2020 election subsection (although it would certainly be proper there), but it should be in this article somewhere. Neutralitytalk 23:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Seconding Neutrality's comments, excluding this is not what notnews refers to. Reywas92Talk 01:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

You should not state that the election fraud claims were "false" when the attempt to prove differently was denied. The condition of the election fraud remains indeterminate. 72.240.132.153 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between Evidence and Proof.

Dear wikipedia. The article mentions that Kristi backed President Donald Trump without any evidence. This is a lie. There was evidence. Affidavits are evidence. What you are thinking of is "proof". Proof is something determined in court. However since the court-cases were thrown out there was no chance to prove or disprove anything. So please change the "evidence" in to "proof" in this article.Thronedrei (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs)

Strong Support Wikipedia's political bias is objectively apparent regarding politicians, political parties and politically charged events. The statement, "Elected as an ally of Donald Trump, Noem consistently backed his agenda." contains irrefutable evidence of bias. The two sources cited as evidence of the statement are Argus Leader and Rolling Stone magazine. The titles of these articles are "Trump blasts Sutton and media, raves about Noem during South Dakota visit" and The Covid Queen of South Dakota Gov Kristi Noem’s state has been ravaged by her Trumpian response to the pandemic — but that hasn’t paused her national ambitions. If political bias is not apparent and evidence is, please show us. If Wikipedia is to become another politically charged chat forum, let it be known publicly. (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC) CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO

ABC provided a transcript of the November 8 2020 conversation. She seemed to be denying that Republican officials across the country had seen "zero evidence" but shortly thereafter said "So, George, I don't know how widespread it is." etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
ABC has been studied and the conclusion is that there is evidence of left leaning bias. [1] (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/abc-news-media-bias

Coverage of pandemic in SD

It is very odd only to tell what Noem said or did during the pandemic (which continues) and not what the effect of her actions have been: a disproportionately high number of cases and deaths in the state compared to areas that followed more public health guidelines. Residents in South Dakota have suffered great losses because of her policies.Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned, because correlation is not causation, and the sources that are cited do not actually draw a causal link between Noem's policies and the levels of infection in her jurisdiction. It would seem to be a WP:BLP issue that this is not directly supported by real, actual evidence; I would even say that WP:MEDRS comes into play here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know if this is part of your edits but it needs to go somewhere on the talk page. I took out “live and let live” because that’s a meaningless phrase, is not descriptive of the policies, and reads like a campaign yard sign. Please try to use specific examples of policies or actions, unless there is a specifically defined term of art used to denote a policy. And, frankly, that particular phrase is disingenuous given the statistics for the SD deaths and infections and therefore is a blatant NPOV issue, in addition to just being bad writing. DonGeiss (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Picture

I think most people can agree that this is probably a better picture for the infobox. I would change it, but my account is too new. Guy13932 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Guy13932: Can we use it? I don't see evidence of a free license. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
It's her image from the public SD Governor site. Per Disclaimer, Anyone may view, copy or distribute information found on the State's website for personal or informational use without owing an obligation to the State. The State makes no warranty that the materials contained within this information are free from copyright claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display.--PrimEviL 12:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately the restriction to "personal or informational use" would mean that the image does not satisfy the requirements on free content, and it does not seem that South Dakota is among the US states whose government works are generally in the public domain. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The current photo is a pretty nasty trick guys. You're obviously smart enough to know what you're doing and-- it's kind of funny-- but should be changed. 65.215.37.242 (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

Add a section, regarding a national news story with references

 Partly done: I changed the heading name a bit, and left out the second paragraph as it is sourced to a primary source and may be WP:UNDUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Deployment of South Dakota National Guard to southern border and private donation

In June 2021, Noem announced that she as sending members of the South Dakota National Guard to the Texas border with Mexico. [1] Tennessee billionaire Willis Johnson and his wife Reba said they would donate the money necessary for the deployment. [2]

In September 2021, the Center for Public Integrity sued the U.S. Department of Defense and the South Dakota National Guard for documents related to the mobilization and the donation to pay for it. [3] ElmerHansen (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "South Dakota governor sending National Guard to Mexico border on mission funded by GOP megadonor". washingtonpost.com. June 29, 2021. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  2. ^ "Billionaire GOP Donor Bankrolls National Guard Border Deployment". time.com. June 29, 2021. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
  3. ^ "Public Integrity sues for National Guard border deployment records". publicintegrity.org. September 22, 2021. Retrieved September 26, 2021.

Lead is really poorly written

I understand that you want to put some of the most notable actions at the lead, but I would suggest re-writing it to read less like a modern tabloid and more like an encyclopedia. This is a problem that has gotten really out of hand on Wiki, but you're writing history ( if you take this project seriously) and it's important to not seem like you are leaning heavily in one polticial direction and villainizing the subject on a controversial issue. During a time with no central leadership during the pandemic, Noem chose to handle the situation differently than what Fauci was recommending. While noteworthy, it's not heresey. 65.215.37.242 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, came to the talk page because of the same thing. Not doing much to convince anyone that Wikipedia isn't harboring extreme biases. You're basically saying "I consider this the single most important thing about this person and I want anyone who comes here to know this, in extreme detail." I doubt this tidbit warrants that treatment, to such an extent, or at most could be summarized along with other things about her political career. Chief1983 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple chiefs of staff

Including this heading, as the first item under her tenure as governor seems like a violation of WP:NPOV. If her administration was marked by conflict or disfunction, that can be discussed. Absent that, I think we are tossing innuendo. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 00:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Kristi Noem on covid

Don’t mention any of the positives she has done .. focus only on the cdc and NIH narratives for covid.... good job ..... 2601:545:8001:9080:B052:9970:30DD:4FE8 (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a joke.

What an awesome way to tell you a little bit about a female in power. Ridiculous trash. Ally of Trump apparently means you are a bad person. For the record, her state has had fantastic numbers on Covid stats as bad as the media and this trash website doesn’t want to admit it. All of this as democrat allies cozy up with child molesters. Keep up the fantastic brainwashing work Wikipedia. 2600:100C:B03A:837C:39E7:B525:76F6:7E8C (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fantastic numbers on Covid stats"? I can help you find more neutral sources. Roostery123 (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Biased

The introduction is laughably biased against the governor. It’s horseshit.

2600:1700:38C1:3BF0:6453:C026:D03B:2AAF (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Not Rancher or Rodeio Cowgirl

Kristy Noem / farmer versus Rancher ==

Kristy Noem is in no way a Rancher. She barely qualifies as a farmer as her extended family operates a small farm/pheasant hunting lodge in Eastern South Dakota. There is a huge difference between a true Rancher and a small farmer. Kristy Noem could sort of be considered the later A "farm owner" . She is not and has never been a "rodeo cowgirl". She has never been a contestant in any rodeo. Anyone can put on western clothes and lope around on a horse with a flag, but that far from makes them a rodeo cowgirl. In truth, if that person has never contested in a rodeo, using sports lingo, it makes them a "wanta be". Voodoodomino (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the above post seems relevant to what's in the article, except perhaps: Namiba added the "Ranchers from South Dakota" category in 2014. Should that be removed? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Leaving aside any thoughts on the subject herself, this source calls her a rancher and the National Governor's Association calls her a lifelong rancher.--User:Namiba 20:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Cowgirl Magazine, eh? Okay, sources have been provided for calling her a rancher, sources have not been provided for calling her a non-rancher. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The most unflattering picture of her

What is wrong with you? This is why no one donates to you. 2603:7080:8F01:BA97:6813:34AA:F5C9:5B17 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias

After just reading a bio on someone it's clear Wikipedia is biased in the presentation of facts, or should I say misinformation. 2603:6081:4907:2700:8D29:D1B3:EB23:9357 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Which of the article's assertions do you dispute? Can you cite some wp:reliable sources for different information? Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 00:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


HEre's one.

"Elected as an ally of Donald Trump,[2]" she was elected before trump mattered. Bias. 

"Noem explicitly refused to follow the guidance of medical experts during the COVID-19 pandemic, and did not enact any of the standard public health and safety protections used in other states.[3][4] She did not implement face mask mandates, raised doubts about the efficacy of mask-wearing, encouraged large gatherings without social distancing or mask-wearing, and questioned public health experts' advice.[5][6][7]"

None of this is relevant to Noem. South Dakota, maybe, but not Noem. And by the way, you should have also added that SD ended up with the lowest cases/deaths because of it, and that she ended up being RIGHT. But you won't, because of your obvious bias. This site gets more pathetic and useless every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:1341:3100:BDB6:9BDD:33B0:B0E3 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong. South Dakota did not end up with anywhere near the lowest Covid positivity rates or deaths if you look at the numbers correctly. They may have been lower in the actual number but you have to look at how many people actually live in the state to make a state to state comparison. Voodoodomino (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

But even per capita its performed better than many other states with far far more restrictions. In hindsight her policies should be commended as they were based on common sense.The paragraph is totally irrelevant - especially in its current location. This site should be about encyclopedic information not political posturing. 24.59.51.51 (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Object ivity

Reads like a political hit piece, not an encyclopedia article. The first paragraph attacks her covid policies but fails to mention south Dakota's death rate is more or less in the middle of US states. 98.220.81.214 (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Covid numbers and Death rate were during many long periods of time, at the top of the list compared to other states! And should not have been if handled properly as SD is a very rural state with a very spare population spread out in the state. It would have been so easy to control contact and minimize numbers, again if it had been handled properly! Voodoodomino (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The virus ebbs and flows. Its stupid saying that because it had a high rate at one specific point in time we should demonize its leaders. By your logic the wiki articles for the NY, NJ and CA should also read like political hit pieces.
Again, you are clearly a biased person. You need to support your assertions with facts. There is still to this day essentially no robust evidence than any of the proposed measures had much impact on eventual COVID rates. 24.59.51.51 (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The statement that Kristi Noem would require a 10-year-old to have a baby is factually incorrect. She never said that. Rather, when pressed by Dana Bash if a 10-year-old was physically able to have a baby without endangering her life, wouldn't she be allowed to have an abortion under current law, Noem said that discussion would be had by the family and doctors, implying that if it was determined that if the 10-year-old's life was in jeopardy she could have an abortion under current law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.251.180 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not accurate based on sources cited in article. Please provide sources for your claim. Secarctangent (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Gratuitously difficult to read paragraph in "Conflict of interest action" section.

In the "Conflict of interest action to professionally benefit daughter" segment.

Paragraph currently reads: Noem's spokesperson Ian Fury... Noem... Fury contended... Critics... Noem's... Hunter Biden... father...

It would be much more readable if Noem's, Fury's, and Critics' remarks were pulled out into separate paragraphs. 2601:1C1:C100:9380:0:0:0:F36 (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Most prominently displayed of 3 pics leads to wonder if it was selected to make her look bad (visually).

The picture currently displayed at the top of this article had me immediately scanning the article for a discussion of how "her face was horribly scarred in a fire", or "a catastrophic plastic surgery misadventure", etc.

Yes, make-up can be used to hide a lot but with the 3 pictures available it is reasonable to wonder why the worst picture, by far, was selected to be at the very top.

However controversial her politics, the _appearance_ of maliciously highlighting what is probably among the worst of thousands of photos and probably dozens available under Wikipedia acceptable rules, seems exactly the kind of thing that a boat load of policies regarding articles about living persons would be intended to prevent.

This, the current banner pic, looks like something from a monster movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kristi_Noem_(50364970323)_(cropped).jpg

Both of these look much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kristi_Noem_portrait_(cropped).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kristi_Noem_1.jpg

2601:1C1:C100:9380:0:0:0:F36 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The original photo is have been speedy deleted anyways. I will be replacing the thumbnail. 219.254.154.145 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

I'm concerned that recent editing has changed the POV in the article based upon editors' OR rather than references. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And edit-warring over it doesn't improve the situation [2][3][4] --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring your edit-warring accusation, I looked at just a bit of the content: The cancelation of the pipeline “[signaled] to the world that American energy independence is no longer a priority,”[92] Noem wrote, later saying in an interview that President Biden gave Putin “all the power” by canceling the pipeline, arguing that it enabled Russia to invade Ukraine.[93] This is an opinion which is properly attributed to Ms Noem, so if there's a POV it's hers and that's okay, and there are references, and I don't see how it's original research. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
There have been a lot of problems. The three diffs are just the most recent.
Concerning the part you're looking at: I'm not sure how it meets WP:QUOTE, let alone WP:SOAP.
The diffs show far more was changed beyond just the addition of the quote. --Hipal (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

degree

"She completed her degree in political science at SDSU in 2012" - What does it mean exactly/concretly ? Bachelor (B.A.) or Master (M.A.) ? Best regards, European (Germany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:20C5:EC00:851F:A13D:BD2B:20B3 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2023

There should be an addition regarding her past legal troubles, specifically around driving:

"Noem has been ticketed more than 20 times for driving offenses, and two bench warrants were issued for her arrest. She was never arrested or jailed and has paid all her fines."

"Noem's most recent violation, according to records kept by the South Dakota Unified Judicial System, was driving 94 mph in a 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.

State records going back to November 1989 show Noem with a total of 28 citations: 20 speeding tickets plus two violations for failure to stop at an intersection, two for not wearing a seat belt and two for having expired plates on her vehicle and one each for not having her driver's license with her and not renewing her vehicle registration.

Noem also has been sent six reminder notices and had two warrants issued for overdue fines, which she later settled. Her fines have totaled about $2,100."

"On Feb. 2, 2000, the Beadle County Clerk of Courts had a bench warrant issued for Noem's arrest for not paying a $68 fine for driving 74 mph in a 65 mph zone. Ann Hazuka, a deputy clerk, said that's a "pretty normal practice."

"When she failed to appear in court on Feb. 28, she was sent a reminder letter telling her to pay the fine by March 13. When she did not, according to the office, the bench warrant was issued on March 14, 2006. Noem finally paid a $20 fine."

Source:https://www.mitchellrepublic.com/news/noems-driving-record-takes-wheel-of-campaign GregLstl (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. A local news piece about non-criminal traffic violations does not seem to establish WP:DUEWEIGHT for nearly that much prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

Why is there no mention of Noem’s years long affair with Trump advisor, Corey Lewandowski? This is a FACT and should be added. 67.86.45.195 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the above section. No reliable sources have reported on it, so we can't be sure this is indeed a fact. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

Remove the rumor about affair as it shows this is a political hack snd clearly not objective. Take it down. 2601:280:5901:2AD0:B03B:90AC:F031:2A7 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.Seawolf35 (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Potential VP running mate for Donald J. Trump in 2024

I believe this subject would be a relevant addition to her wiki. Tmath250 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Noem is misspelled

Sentence 3 of 'Dog shooting controversy' 147.26.87.113 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Good spot, thanks. I’ve fixed it. ser! (chat to me - see my edits)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

In her autobiography she relates an incident wherein she was unable to train her 14month old German wirehair pointer puppy, and as a result, shot it in the head; along with a goat.

[1] [2] 72.94.145.164 (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Already done This is covered in the personal life section. Jamedeus (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

== Appears to be information missing from personal life. == Has been moved to new section. Under Guns.

References

  1. ^ https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-book-dog-killing-5710b302e33f61c697f20ab3b227a19b
  2. ^ https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/29/kristi-noem-misdemeanour-shooting-dog

Should Noem's defense of killing her dog be included?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/south-dakota-gov-kristi-noem-continues-defend-shooting-familys-dog-rcna150331 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13375241/kristi-noem-dog-shooting-fake-news-puppy-livestock.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/d-gov-kristi-noem-defends-155218425.html

I don't know which publications are WP approved. 2604:2D80:5907:C400:F9F1:AFC5:3BDC:B240 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Her defence has been included. RogerYg (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Her defence has been further expanded. starship.paint (RUN) 08:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Article is in terrible shape

Came here to learn about how Noem treats animals, only to find massive amounts of irrelevant material. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is wrong. The dog didnt bite her. That not what her book claimed. The chickens werent her families either. They belonged to someone else 2603:9000:C204:F112:B534:6D5D:A282:CDCE (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Clarified the chickens part -> After the hunt, when Noem visited a local family, Cricket escaped Noem's vehicle and killed several of the local family's chickens and the bite part Noem grabbed Cricket, it "whipped around to bite" her. starship.paint (RUN) 03:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs to be clarification on different sections

The Article is broken into different sections after the intro. First listing Early life and Education, then listing South Dakota House of Representatives, and U.S. House of Representatives. In the later, sub sections of dates representing those elections are listed. Then another sub section of Tenure is listed. After a detailed account of her tenure there are listed topics such as Abortion, Energy and environment, Foreign Affairs, etc. With a an explanation of her stance on each.

The same is repeated for Governor of South Dakota.

It would make more sense to have another sub-section each after under Tenure, such as "Platforms", "Stances", "Bills Voted On", or even "Controversies".

Sorry if this is the wrong place to list this and obvious lack of knowledge of Wikipedia nomenclature regarding structure. 2604:2D80:5907:C400:219A:5C99:5E0C:F44B (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Killing of domesticated animals

Noem has admitted in her self authored book to killing both a 15 month old puppy and a family pet goat because they were "untrainable" and "aggressive". Noem also admits not training either animal. 2604:2D80:5907:C400:70A9:ECC0:8DE4:ACBB (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

More heat than light. starship.paint (RUN) 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, the good news is we can now envision what Trumpcare will look like in the near future. Instead of paying for prescription medicine, they will just send a van to your house to take you to the gravel pits. The political party iconography is all wrong. The GOP should be represented by Yosemite Sam, not an elephant, and the Democratic Party should get rid of the donkey and use Bugs Bunny instead. It all makes sense when you see it this way. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Edited title to be within WP:BLP. Content is in Kristi Noem#Personal life and has several reliable sources. starship.paint (RUN) 03:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. 2604:2D80:5907:C400:219A:5C99:5E0C:F44B (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you people control your blatant bias for one second? What does that entire paragraph of mindless rambling babbling gibberish have to do with the governor? What did that accomplish? You could have gotten some sweet sweet upvotes on reddit with that patrisan hackery, but instead you chose to screech into the void here. Feel better? All 160,000(!!!) of your edits should be suspect.
And do we really need two paragraphs about the governor putting down dangerous animals? Apparently none of you have ever lived on a farm, and I don't need any of your totally completely 100% true anecdotes about how oh yes you do live on a farm and how you never ever would blah blah blah... OKThatsTerrific (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
There's something to be said for living on a farm in 1824 and treating animals a certain way. But the thing of it is, and people certainly need reminders for some reason, here we are in 2024, not 1824, and the way we treat animals now in this century is entirely different than the way we treated them then. Not exactly sure why this needs to be explained. Of course, this is one of the major problems with the conservative ideology. Things change over time, whether you accept it or not. In 1824, people treated animals terribly because it was believed by mainstream "science" of the time that they were not conscious like humans, and did not deserve rights of any kind as they were comparable to machines. Mainstream science no longer subscribes to this erroneous view. This is one of many reasons why we treat animals differently today and why there are so many alternatives to outright killing them, such as sending them to animal sanctuaries, where they can live out their lives. There are many philosophers and thinkers who have addressed these ideas. Oddly, it was Hubert Humphrey, the 38th Vice President of the United States, who said, just a year before he died, "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." One could argue that Noem's treatment of animals falls under this kind of scrutiny. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for five notifications emails in the middle of the night because you couldn't collect your predictably irrelevant meandering thoughts all at once. Try a notepad app or some scratch paper. Paragraphs are a nifty construct as well.
You don't need to reply to this. You've not said anything worth reading. Ever.
Now that I'm awake, I think I might make a bacon cheeseburger. Don't worry, Gov. Noem didn't kill the cow or pig. OKThatsTerrific (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Noem said she intentionally killed her puppy (and a goat) because, quote, she "hated" the animals. She was criticized by fellow members of the GOP Rick Wilson and Denver Riggleman for what they described as "deliberately cruel" behavior and for "bragging" about how poorly she treats animals. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
You seem like you would be great fun at a party. 2604:2D80:5907:C400:219A:5C99:5E0C:F44B (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It speaks to her character, don't you think? George Mucus (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
It speaks more to the character of the people who think a 400-word essay in an already overly-bloated article is necessary when one sentence would do: "In a forthcoming book excerpted by The Guardian, Noem acknowledged putting down a dangerous dog that killed a neighbor's chickens and an aggressive goat that attacked her children." Did we really need a link to the page on gravel pits? Good lord.
Also note her name is Noem, not Norm, an embarrassing error I can't be bothered to fix because I'll be tempted to delete the whole wall of text and replace it with the sentence I just suggested only to have one of you perpetually-online hall monitors revert it, assuming you can take time away from vehemently protecting Katherine Maher's sanitized page.
Anyway, my main complaint was about the length, not the content. My secondary complaint was the blatant bias shown by the maundering comments here. I don't see any pearl-clutching about those poor murdered chickens #PoultryLivesMatter OKThatsTerrific (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The content is WP:DUE, we have several reliable sources - Reuters, Associated Press, Guardian, New York Times, BBC, NBC, CNN… This is a story written by Noem herself that she wanted to broadcast to the world, so it’s relevant. She’s also essentially confirmed it by directly responding to the Guardian… Also if you think that this story is truly a nothingburger then reading about it can’t hurt Noem, right? starship.paint (RUN) 08:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
It's her own publicity. She obviously feels that anecdotes about shooting puppies and pet goats in gravel pits will go down well with GOP voters - maybe it will. Of course WP should cover this. US politics has become completely insane. --Ef80 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
If you think "because I live on a farm" is a good enough reason to kill a dog that could easily be rehomed, then you're just as much of a (Redacted) as she is GustyGores (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Redacted unacceptable personal attack. starship.paint (RUN) 01:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
GustyGores, this kind of thought process is common to Christian conservatives in the US and has a sad, but fascinating backstory, and it's one I've been writing about here and there for decades. Basically, this kind of thinking is rooted in Christian Dominionism, and since the 1950s, it has transcended religious morality to become a tenet of late stage capitalism frequently found in free market fundamentlist rhetoric. The pseduo-pastoralism of "because I live on a farm" is, for those who aren't aware of it, a kind of dog whistle in American politics that divides those of us in cities with rural folk. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
"I live on a farm" does have some validity. Having lived both on farms and in cities, the different experiences of each location can really shape someone's experiences. Guns, for example. Someone who's spent their whole life in the city won't understand that you really do need a gun like the AR15 to deal with feral pig encroachment or coyote attacks. Someone who's spent their whole life in a city, meanwhile, won't understand the fear of going to a crowded school or shopping district soon after a highly publicized shooting. I get that "I live on a farm" is becoming kind of a dog whistle, but I think we need to understand what they're trying to say and talk to those that are genuinely wanting to engage in good faith. I hate to sound like a centrist - I have principles, after all - but there's often a solution in the middle that both sides of the political spectrum can live with. It won't be what they want and it won't be what we want, but the policy will at least function and we won't have to go to war with one another over it. :) George Mucus (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Cricket story placement

Cpotisch (talk · contribs) has made the decision to move the Cricket story from the "personal life" section to the "guns" section under her gubernatorial tenure. This to me seems very misguided. Yes, the story does involve a gun but it has nothing to do with her positions or actions on gun rights as a governor. If anything it would be more relevant to animal rights, but I don't see it as being really related to her governorship at all. 203.211.79.75 (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with your argument, its not about Gun rights. RogerYg (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, restored in personal life. starship.paint (RUN) 08:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Affair with Corey Lewandowski

Published reports on 9/15/2023 suggest that she has been having a longstanding affair with Corey Lewandowski. This is significant because she portrays herself as a family values politician and because it might affect a decision to nominate her as Trump's VP running mate in 2024. This should be added. 24.151.28.29 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I thought this was just a joke and I was about to revert - but whoa, this seems to actually be a thing. Per Wiki policy of course we'll have to wait for more reliable sources to come out before adding it to the article though, as it seems only non-reliable and deprecated ones have published it so far. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
This story is being extensively reported on. It’s in UpRoxx, Marca, Queerty, and Vanity Fair, among others. Time to add. —2601:8C0:A83:87F0:1C49:C788:A9E3:F168 (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
This other stories all sourced from the same tabloid sources, Daily Mail and NYP. These stories specifically refer to them as tabloids. These are not acceptable sources. Not sure why this isn't super clear and is being discussed. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
looks like MEAWW and Raw Story picked it up too. 2601:8C0:A83:87F0:1C49:C788:A9E3:F168 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
This is definitely relevant for reasons already stated. The Lincoln Project has a short piece of it today (6 hours ago), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP4dN8-Ci40, contrasting "portrayal" vs "actuality" or "alternative facts" vs "facts" of both these people. KREX68 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
It's relevant, but so far it's only the Daily Mail, all other sources are just re-reporting their story. I would wait until a better source comes out with its own story, or at least until one good source independently confirms it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, only rags seem to be covering it so far. If it turns out to be verifiable, I'm confident every perennially reliable source will be on it right away. We can hold out til then. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Even if the claim is not solid enough to be made in wikivoice, the fact that it was alleged publicly has garnered significant media attention, and thus warrants inclusion. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You are not correct. This is not following WP policy to include allegations from a tabloid deemed not reliable. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
It has been covered by sources other than what you dismiss as tabloids and attributed to those tabloids. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Peter L Griffin: - what are the most reliable sources reporting this story? starship.paint (RUN) 02:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
A quick search turns up CNN [5] and Washington Post [6] to name a few. Reliable local SD news outlets were also sourced at this page before someone removed them.
My claim is not so much that the rumors are definitely true but that the rumors are inherently noteworthy for inclusion as an attributed claim as a result of having been covered prominently. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Vanity Fair too [7] Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Politico [8] Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
As for local:
South Dakota Searchlight [9] and Sioux Falls Live [10] Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Peter L Griffin: - CNN, Washington Post and Politico are good national-level sources, I would use those. Vanity Fair is a bit iffy, it's reliable for popculture, but personally I'd say it's less WP:DUE for politics. The Searchlight opinion article is unusable. CNBC also reported on it. starship.paint (RUN) 07:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Family farm

It's odd that Noem and her defenders like to talk up her "farm", but there is little to nothing said about it here except that her father died there. It was apparently a 9,700-acre ranch that Noem inherited. She received more than $4 million in government subsidies for the ranch before she "cashed out" in 2017 so it isn't even clear that the claims about her running a "farm" where she killed her dog and goat are even true. ("Between 1995 and 2016, her family-owned Racota Valley Ranch in Hazel, S.D. cashed $3,704,415 million in government farm subsidies. In 2012 alone, they accepted $232,707 in subsidies.") I wonder what South Dakota taxpayers would think about the millions Noem received in a state where the minimum wage is $11.20 per hour. For what it is worth, it appears that Noem is on record as being against subsidies for anyone other than herself. Once again, the same story plays out: socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple legal experts have poked holes in Noem's story about her farm and the IRS.[11] Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
These statements, in order for them to be considered for inclusion in this article, must be backed by specific Reliable sources. Also, Moral opinions may not be helpful for factual discussion. Wikipedia is for neutral factual information (WP:NPOV), as much as possible. RogerYg (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that the recent dog killing incident deserves its own section

This incident seems much more relevant than others that have a dedicated section. Including Conflict of interest action to professionally benefit daughter, Fireworks at Mount Rushmore lawsuit, Governor's mansion spending, "Meth. We're on It" campaign and others. While all sections have seemingly shaped her stances and gave insight to character, this appears to be defining a part of her career and possibly losing the chance at a VP nod. Obviously if it doesn't revisions can be made then but for now it seems to be very much front facing in all media. 2604:2D80:5907:C400:F9F1:AFC5:3BDC:B240 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the significant and widespread media coverage of the "Dog Killing incident", it can no longer be just a detail in the Personal life section, and deserves a new section, or sub-section along with other related issues from her book, such as goat killings. Given the significant WP:RS sources, this is the most reported story on Kristi Noem, and hence needs a brief mention in the lead. RogerYg (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
As per the discussion, a sub-section within "Personal life" section, as Dog shooting incident has been added. Since, it broadly falls more under Personal life, as compared to other major sections sections on Career. RogerYg (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, this incident has caused the third highest page views of this article during its lifetime. [12] starship.paint (RUN) 08:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Brief mention in Lead, including the overall context of Farm life, along with her autobiographies:

Living in rural South Dakota, Noem is also a farmer and a rancher.[2] Noem published first autobiography, Not My First Rodeo: Lessons from the Heartland in 2022.[3] Later in 2024, in her second autobiography, No Going Back, Noem mentioned about an incident involving shooting her untrainable dog [2][4] and defended it as a "tough decision".[4][5]

Please discuss here for any relevant updates to the brief lead mention. RogerYg (talk)
Changed to Noem reportedly discussed killing her "untrainable" 14-month old dog that she "hated", while publicly defending her action as being that of a "responsible owner". (1) "reportedly" because the book chapter has not been publicly released yet, this is the Guardian's reporting. (2) changed "tough decision" because it was vague, perhaps "responsible owner" is more descriptive. (3) provided age of dog and feeling towards dog. starship.paint (RUN) 08:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
"age" of dog and "feeling towards dog" are probably details not neccecary in the lead. They are mentioned in the body.. "Hated" is a strong word for lead.
We need to make lead more neutral to avoid frequent edits & reverts in the lead by different editors RogerYg (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@RogerYg: - I respect your input and have changed the lede accordingly to remove "hated", I still feel that the age of the dog is needed to clarify that this is not an old dog that needed euthanasia from old age. Noem reportedly discussed killing her aggressive and "untrainable" 14-month old dog, while publicly defending her action as being that of a "responsible owner". starship.paint (RUN) 08:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, looks fine for now. RogerYg (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we need to mention briefly about the criticism, when including her defence Updated with neutral language:
Responding to the criticism, Noem defended it as a tough decision of a "responsible owner". RogerYg (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
The initial coverage was based only on the Guardian's report of her disclosure. It may be heavily covered, but all of the sources that detail the story are based on the Guardian report. The book is out on Tuesday and we can edit accordingly; its publication will generate more coverage.JSFarman (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, okay with above. starship.paint (RUN) 01:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
As per WP:RS sources, "Untrainable" is Noem's opinion and not factual enough to include in lead.
Also, as it was currently stated in the lead, it was not clear whether it was Noem's opinion or fact. Therefore, it had be deleted, or re-stated in different language RogerYg (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Restated to clarify that these are Noem's opinions: "responsible owner" and "untrainable." Noem recounted an incident in which she shot and killed her young dog that seemed "untrainable".[4][5] Responding to widespread criticism, Noem argued that she was a "responsible owner" who made a tough decision.[6][5] RogerYg (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
OK. starship.paint (RUN) 06:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Monthly views - April 2024 is the month with the most views dating to the start of counting in 2015. Meanwhile May 2024 is already the third or fourth highest viewed month, and will probably become the most viewed month in less than a week. No Going Back certainly seems like the biggest thing of her political career so far. starship.paint (RUN) 14:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kristi_Noem/Archive_2&oldid=1261559633"