Talk:Levi Johnston

Johnston left high school early + works for a fishing company?

I don't want to be mean or anything, but why is it never mentioned anywhere in this article that Levi Johnston is supposedly a high school dropout who fritters away his days holding down a job at a fishing/canning company? Now, there's no word from Levi himself on this (at least not that I've seen? heard? read?), but various notable news organizations have claimed that he was on the football team in high school, only to drop out (not sure when he did). Should this be added to the article? ★Dasani★ 01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can come if with a source, we can add it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

External links section

I had removed 3 links per WP:EL since the sites are only indirectly related to the subject of the article. Can the material presented in the links be incorporated into the article if appropriate/noteworthy enough for inclusion in the main body of the article? I will not revert for now. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Wikiproject

I have removed the LGBT Wikiproject template from this discussion page. There is nothing in the article that suggests why it should be included, and is probably some form of creative vandalism. Michaelh2001 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So true. 75.85.19.205 (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues please do not remove tag until they are resolved

Bias

Lack of balance shows from the beginning. The lead says that he feud with the Palins, however, it was a mutual feud. Selective quotes from Johnston are out of context and paint him in an unnecessarily negative light. I will try to correct some of the bias, but will need help from other editors of good faith who want to paint a balanced picture for a BLP 64.38.197.207 (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Confusing chronology - article skips all around. Why? The guy is only 19 yo 64.38.197.207 (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed cleanup tag - article has been reorganized and rewritten. KeptSouth (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion needed

41 references yet very little content in the article 64.38.197.207 (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

41 references all mostly say the same stuff: he is the dad of Bristol's kid. He appeared at the Republican campaign. He dropped out of high school. He's "an effing redneck". He's modeling for Playgirl. Not much else to add, except more details from those sources. 75.4.249.152 (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

aspiring reality star???

Why does the introduction say he is a 'aspiring reality star'? Under the 'career' area it says he is shopping a memoir around and wanting to become a movie actor, nothing specific about wanting to become an aspiring reality star as his primary career. I'm taking it out... could be a violation of bio, as he is not well known for that above all else. 67.85.194.11 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Amusing that you think calling this individual an aspiring reality television star is a potential violation of BLP, but in any case "public figure in politics" is ridiculous. Returned the lead sentence to earlier language supported by the article's text. Tvoz/talk 08:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Example images

{{Editprotected}}

There are a couple of example images at the bottom of the article which need removing.[1] Thanks. --Ibn (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Done :-) --Commander Keane (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Woops! Must have been a mouse slip - thanks. –xeno^talk 12:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Corbin Fisher

The fact that a job offer was unsolicited does not make it either (a) insignificant esp in light of allegations (b) untrue (c) irrelevant. Given the nature and source of the allegations relevance and significance is clearly established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.115.38 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: if Levi was offered the job of working for the KKK, and this was verifiable, should we be rushing to add that to the article? --Ibn (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm not trying to compare gay porn to white supremacy movements. But the subject of this article has the right to be protected from organisations that are trying to make capital from his fame. --Ibn (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not evidence that they are or are not. It looks like you are presuming guilt before innocence. As assumes to be the case on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.115.38 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Johnston is looking to work in the porn industry (other than posing for Playgirl)? --Ibn (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

An unsolicited job offer isn't a notable event in a famous person's life. The same company could turn around and offer a contract to Barack Obama, and that certainly wouldn't be relevant. Dayewalker (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So, extending the argument, it is also irrelevant that Sarah Palin states he aspires to a Porn career? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.180.42 (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about that quote, honestly. As Palin's the only source for that, and Johnston hasn't done any porn or even nudity yet, it seems like it might just be an unsourced opinion or perhaps a running joke in the Palin family. Dayewalker (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, this unsubstantiated scurrilous allegation must be removed. Otherwise your argument is inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.34.75 (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to go that far right now, let's get some comments from other editors and see what the consensus is. Dayewalker (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you should make a decision. Both have made allegations which are sourced directly and unsubstantiated - as you have acknowledged. Either this applies consistently or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.34.75 (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I did make a decision. I chose to wait for further opinion on it. It's sourced, and it's not a BLP violation, it's just a statement that may or may not be appropriate for the article. I've given my opinion, I'd like to see what other editors besides the two of us have to say. Dayewalker (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The original Corbin Fisher change was also sourced. Can you elaborate on how you view this as a BLP violation - as it clearly cannot be the pron as both proposed changes explicitly refer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.34.75 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Dayewalker that an unsolicited job offer isn't a notable event in a famous person's life. The most important thing here is that he turned down the offer. It appears to be a one-time thing as he is not pursuing a porn industry career. Therefore, it's irrelevant non-notable, trivia. See WP:Notability, WP:Not KeptSouth (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Corbin Fisher again

This is back again, and edit warring isn't acceptable here. The statement about turning down the offer is in the article at the moment, but the matter in contention is whether we should characterize the reason for his turn-down as being "financially unattractive". Several editors have removed this because the source can be interpreted in more than one way - it could be that he would do it for more money or it could be that he would not do it for any money. Since this is not at all a crucial point in his life or career (indeed, I am not convinced the item should be here at all), we do not need to speculate on what the source meant. It's more than enough to just say that he turned down the offer. Tvoz/talk 21:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the whole thing. The discussion above never seemed to find any consensus to add the material in any form, regardless of the motivation. An unsolicited job offer doesn't seem notable, I believe that same company has done that on more than one occasion seeking publicity. Since Johnston isn't a homosexual or working in porn, it seems to be against the spirit of BLP to include him turning down a job in gay porn. Dayewalker (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Tvoz/talk 23:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the allegations by Sarah Palin, this gives extra context. Also clarifies potential ambiguities in allegations and under what circumstances they may be acted upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.88.238 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What allegations are you referring to? I haven't seen anything that "clarifies" anything. Dayewalker (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevant in light of the allegations made by Sarah Palin. Adds context. Mr J did not rule out a shoot [sic] if it was financially attractive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.255.76 (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian?

Levi Johnston cannot be of ~Canadian~ descent. Canadian is not an ethnic group. Can somebody clarify his true ethnicity? Canadian is a nationality, and it can be Chinese, French, or any sort of Asian, White, or the other two. 75.4.241.18 (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe French-Canadian? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Mayoral campaign" again

He considered running for Sarah Palin's former job as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, but withdrew from the race in August 2011.

Sounds like more whitewashing to me. I've already explained this in more detail in WP:BLPN. There is a big difference between registering with a state agency (to wit, the Alaska Public Offices Commission) to be considered a candidate under state law for their purposes under their laws (specifically, amounting to no more than authorization to raise and spend money), and in actually filing for the office, which falls strictly under the ordinances of the City of Wasilla. I've yet to see anything which clearly indicates to me that Johnston made any effort with the City of Wasilla to file for office, which occurs within a specific window during August. A press release stating that he would not be a candidate, issued after the conclusion of the filing period, sounds more like backpedaling to cover his ass than a conclusive statement that he "withdrew," much less actually filed for office.RadioKAOS (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a follow-up to WP:BLPN. The last part of it I feel is relevant to this page - the "smoking gun," if you will. Reposting here...

Upon further digging, I was mistaken on one point. The filing deadline was in July, not August. Most municipalities in Alaska hold their filing windows in August. Another check of APOC's website reveals that Johnston filed the bare minimum of paperwork with them, and as of this date did not close out his campaign. Given that the paperwork listed the address of Rex Butler's law firm, I could possibly state without being incorrect that Johnston's actual involvement was limited to affixing his signature to the forms. The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman reported the following on July 30: After being the first to file a letter of intent to run for mayor last August, former Bristol Palin beau Levi Johnston did not follow through with his official paperwork with the city. The following paragraphs in the story contain quotes from Tank Jones, not Johnston, and give conflicting information as to Johnston's actual intent during what was the final days of the filing window. In other words, a Frontiersman reporter must have noticed earlier in that week that the deadline was fast approaching and that Johnston still had not filed as a candidate. And that's what's important to this discussion, not whether the celebrity-oriented media declared him to be a candidate, and not whether filing a letter of intent with APOC made him a candidate in the eyes of some. To quote from the letter of intent form: Although I have not yet satisfied the filing requirements as a candidate, I will comply with the requirements of AS 15.13 as though I were already a candidate.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's me again. This is clearly selective sourcing. Witness the sort of POV-ish drivel which is cited in support of the article: Levi Johnston has put off his political career for now, deciding that he is not going to run for Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned. Exclusively learned what? Another reporter learned about four weeks earlier that the filing deadline had passed and that he never bothered to file. Am I supposed to believe that the story I referred to previously can't be trusted because it came from Johnston's hometown? I'm not buying it. The "deer in the headlights" in this case are the corporate media lemmings and their followers, who appear to be grasping at straws to create content. That goes for this article as well as a good portion of the media articles cited in this article.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Necessary revision of the article

Let us concede that Mr. Johnston was once notable - in 2008 or 2009. Does that mean he is still notable? While it may have been appropriate to list minutia known about him a few years ago, it seems inappropriate to have such detailed coverage today. He chose not to run for mayor of a very small town. That's worthy of Wikipedia? I must assume the article for deletion debate has already raged, but can we agree this person's bio should be significantly shortened? He is now - be honest - no more worthy of a Wikipedia article today than is anyone reading this paragraph.Purplethree (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Levi's hair

I came to this Wikipedia bio to find out if Levi Johnston had a ponytail (or "mullet") - it is mentioned in the HBO made-for-TV-movie, but not in his bio. Did he have a ponytail or something???Betathetapi545 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Does Wikipedia really need articles on the former boyfriends of the daughters of former state governors? Where will this proliferation of articles end?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose to test the notability of any Wikipedia you can take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For a more general discussion on notability you could post at Wikipedia:Village pump or maybe the Wikipedia:Help desk, after reading Wikipedia:Notability. Personally, if I see a few sources (newspapers and magazines etc) covering a subject then I think it is fine for a Wikipedia article to exist. I look at it as Wikipedia is a "popular culture encyclopedia", as well as a "natural disaster encyclopedia" or a "train tunnel encyclopedia" etc.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Irrespective of the merit of this person, it is not clear why he they should be considered notable now, in 2024. Wikipedia is not enhanced by this article, and it seems likely that the individual it is about is not affected positively by its existence. What's the procedure to get rid of it? athinaios | Talk 02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)