Talk:Kristi Noem

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kristi Noem article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

South Dakota High‑importance

	South Dakota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: State Legislatures / Governors Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Mid-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Peter L Griffin: - what are the most reliable sources reporting this story? starship .paint (RUN) 02:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search turns up CNN [1] and Washington Post [2] 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)[reply]

Vanity Fair too [3] Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politico [4] Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for local:

South Dakota Searchlight [5] and Sioux Falls Live [6] Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Multiple legal experts have poked holes in Noem's story about her farm and the IRS.[7] Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Indeed, this incident has caused the third highest page views of this article during its lifetime. [8] starship .paint (RUN) 08:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Okay, looks fine for now. RogerYg (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, okay with above. starship .paint (RUN) 01:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. starship .paint (RUN) 06:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with your argument, its not about Gun rights. RogerYg (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, restored in personal life. starship .paint (RUN) 08:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edit: Add that she shot her goat twice in the gravel pit

In the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristi_Noem#No_Going_Back it states that Governor Noem decided to kill her goat. However according to the sources listed she then took her goat to the gravel pit where she shot her dog and shot her goat twice as well. Seems prurient to add that she followed through on her decision. 2601:2C3:800:B080:94FC:772:A71D:F5B8 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Someone else already added two shots, I added the location. starship .paint (RUN) 06:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 2601:2C3:800:B080:B08D:2B9F:6F81:A0D9 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in the article? It adds zero value, even the banner above the excerpt asks to trim it down due to it being only appreciated by a small very specific audience. Just because she said it in her book does not give it notability to be on this page. Please remove this entire entry. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing how biased and one-sided the publications are against conservatives, republicans and anyone on the other opposite side of the political spectrum. Ever so critical, manipulative and purposely pointing out the bad and the ugly and not the good. On the other hand the liberals get outstanding reports and representation from editors. Jbcuba (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]