Talk:Michele Bachmann/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blanking

I don't see how anyone could argue that a congresswoman calling for an overthrow of the United States government is non-notable. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is atleast get some reliable sources beyond Huffington Post and TPM. Maybe the Times or Post has covered this event? TharsHammar (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the audio of one of the interviews. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have RS that have covered this? Also, what is up with the categories? Anyways, Tom (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop blanking my edits without a valid reason or you will be reported for vandalism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikipedia is not the news. Not really necessary to report every statement here. Anyways,--Tom (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)ps, we also don't need to use 8 blogs and opinion pieces as citations, that is a bit much. If this is a big story in 6 months, then maybe include it, anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)pss, I believe I came here from the BLP board and might go back there again for others to comment on this recent "material" and its notability and weight and citations. TIA --Tom (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that every statement be reported here. However, I don't see how you can argue against the inclusion of a call for armed revolution by a congresswoman with the original source provided. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I added more sources because you called for more RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Try trimming down the material to 2 or 3 sentences to reflect the appropriate weight. Also do not assume bad faith by other editors as you did here. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanking someone's edits without a valid reason is not acting in good faith. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading this talk page you can see many reasons for why the contributions were reverted. Tom even said "see talk page" [1] where there is an ongoing discussion about the material. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent/edit conflict) First, please don't call my edit "bad faith", that is not helpful. 2nd, can we break this into two issues, ie, conservative label in the lead, and calls for reveloution material since they are seperate? 3rd, if this is going to be included, does it need to have such weight/space given to it? I know this isn't a paper encyclopedia, but 3 paragraphs and 10 citations? Is there a point here? Maybe 1 or 2 or 3 sentences. I don't even think this belongs but I would be willing to listen to suggestions if it was given proper weight in relation to the rest of the bio. The section above it could also be trimmed but that is for another thread. Could you please try a shorter rewrite and post it here and see if this can be worked out? Is that a starting point at all for you? --Tom (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

On March 21st, in an interview with with The Northern Alliance’s John Hinderaker and Brian Ward on WWTC 1280 AM, Bachmann said "Really, now in Washington I'm a foreign correspondent on enemy lines and I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington." and "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people, we the people, are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country and I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."

With some of these sources:

The actual radio interview, hosted on a conservative site

The Hill

The Huffington Post

The Minneapolis Star Tribune 2

The Minnesota Independent

The Nation

The New York Times

Politico

The St. Cloud Times

Talking Points Memo 2

Think Progress

The Twin Cities Daily Planet

The University of Minnesota

The Wall Street Journal

The Washington Independent JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. I sure wouldn't include all the blogs as citations, 1-2 RS from the newspapers maybe. What do others think if anything? Since you are willing to shorten, I should be willing to listen I guess. I still think this is current affairs type material, but open to being "corrected" Thank you for the rewrite. --Tom (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue that a congresswoman calling for revolution is just "current affairs." JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• The section about Bachmann's recent "revolution" comments definitely needs to be pared down. Unless the issue is dragged out for several more news cycles on the daily talk shows, there probably won't be more to add on that issue. At the very least, there doesn't need to be 8 different sources for the same quotation. Find the primary source for the quote, and include that. Wasn't it C-SPAN? Deatonjr (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It was on a radio show and the first source I gave was a direct link to the audio. I've shortened it to three sentences. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There should also be a citation to a well known publication to show notability and verifiability. An extra citation to the Journal or Times can't hurt. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I provided several for you to choose from. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these citations are opinion pieces and Blogs and arenot entirely approproate for a BLP. This article is bad enough, lets not continue to pile garbage on it. CENSEI (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that any quotes from them be added to the article, just Bachmann's own words. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Her "own" words without any noteworth context from a WP:RS sounds an awful lot like original research. CENSEI (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How can her own words possibly be OR? It's not like they're my words. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple. As a public official there are terabytes of primary source with Bachmann's own words, and since there is no way all of it can go into the encyclopedia we as editors have to select primary sources based on notability. The notability is derived from Reliable secondary sources. Selecting primary sources to include in the article without a secondary source is a kind of WP:NOR. CENSEI (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article posted today from the Star Tribune : [2]. Dionyseus (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

An editorial piece. What about it? Tom (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)ps, by a soccer player no less :P Tom (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You are aware there's likely thousands of Kevin Diaz's in the world? The Kevin Diaz from the article you are referring to is Star Tribune's chief Washington correspondent. [3] As for the article I linked to, it's about her escalating rhetoric, and it provides a source for her statement that Minnesotans should arm themselves and revolt against their government, which you removed from this article. You directed us to this talk page, I was expecting to find a valid reason as to why this statement shouldn't be in the article and I haven't found one. The statement is clearly notable and should be included. Dionyseus (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How Come Wikipedia Finds it Okay to Criticize Republicans But Not Okay to Criticize Democrats?

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be politically neutral? If so, how come bias against Republicans is perfectly acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reporting factual criticism of a Republican congresswoman amounts to bias now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.156.99 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If factual criticism of Democrats is kept out of their articles then Yes. In fact, that's very nearly the definition of bias. 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.80.131 (talk)

Silly Republican, let me explain it to you. Anything slanderous said about a Republican Isn't Slander. Anything even less-than-positive about a Democrat is a an outrage and crime against humanity. I hope this clears things up for you.131.247.83.135 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't waste Wikipedians' time by making obviously false assertions about what's "not ok". -- 98.108.197.230 (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

maybe, just for fun, someone can find a female democrat in Wiki with a "Controversy" section that is as extensive as Congresswoman Bachman's. Pelosi has no controversy section. 174.131.113.223 (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)FCH174.131.113.223 (talk)

This Bachmann web page is obviously slanted toward left-wing political-types. Compare and contrast to Joe Biden's wikipedia page, for example, to see how absurd Bachmann's page is. I use Biden as an example because of many of the unbelievable things he's said over the years and the fact that the page does not make that a point of focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justthefactsnow (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This entry seems like it's biased towards the left, because she's a dangerously idiotic lunatic and happens to be Republican. The Fox News bots are everywhere now, we need to ignore whiners who make claims and allegations that are false, illogical, and without any factual examples or cited sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.213.215 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. If it's one thing Wikipedia doesn't need it's thought that deviates from the accepted canon of Republican Evil and Democratic Divinity. We need to stamp it out!131.247.83.135 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your idiotic sarcasm is getting you nowhere. C6541 (T↔C) 06:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Further blanking

If anyone has any objections to this edit, please share them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I reformatted some refs, removed the blog sources since Wikipedia considers them to not be verifiable sources of information, and some other minor fixes. Dionyseus (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a rewrite tag?

I see no justification for the rewrite tag on this page, and none is listed here, so I'm taking it down. Also, I've taken down the badly sourced tag and the POV tag since neither was backed up here or apparent to me. All POV complaints on this page are gone from the article by now. It looks like someone just stuck them all up there because they don't like the article. I'm open to opposing opinions, but they need to be stated for these tags to be justified. - The Talking Sock talk contribs 21:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Support that move, the tag was added awhile ago, and the article has since been cleaned up a lot. That and the user who added the tag is now indef banned. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section causing POV problems?

When I edit I try to avoid POV-forking sections that are deceptively intended to evade NPOV, and the controversies section seems to do so. For example the "Religion in the 2006 campaign" should be included within the main 2006 campaign section at the degree of relevance/depth of coverage it has. And the other controversies should be merged within a main career section. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Consumer protection

The heading noting Congresswoman Bachmann's co-sponsorship of The Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act (H.R. 4008) inaccurately labels the legislation "Consumer Protection." It is not a consumer protection bill (it narrows merchant liability under the FCRA), but would be better classified as "Tort Reform." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abumanolo (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph arguing for CFLs

If Wikipedia BLPs included every argument against the subjects' stances on issues, they would become very ponderous very quickly. As such, I have removed the paragraph arguing against Bachmann's stance against CFLs. Had the references directly referenced Bachmann, I could agree on their inclusion. The paragraph could be restored if references that include mention of Bachmann's involvement in this issue were used instead. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is not the article to argue their merits. Arzel (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite unbalanced

This article seems far to focused on controversies surrounding Bachmann. I cleaned up a little of the over-the-top comments and some of the original research that was done. Nonetheless the controversies section is quite long and seems focused on somewhat mundane aspects. Arzel (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Jon Stewart's comment is undue weight. Per BLP, articles should not serve to denegrate the subject, and Stewart's mocking falls under that clause. It adds no other basis for inclusion other than to mock Bachmann. Arzel (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, why is Blumenauer's quote important other than to attack Bachmann? Per WP:NPOV we must careful to present a balanced tone. Just because something is said does not mean that what he said is important, this is especially true when dealing with partisan attacks from one party against another. Simply state Bachmann's position on Global Warming and her error. Blumenauer's opinion has no standing and without any context to what exactly he claims she was making up it leaves the reader confused as to the point of inclusion. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have an issue with Blumenauer's quote; as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually 0.000386% (380 parts per million), if Bachmann made a mistake in the math the quote is also at fault for overstating the actually % of CO2. I do not see the relevence of entire statement. Please consider removing or at least correcting this part of the article. --Bds babydoll (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Blumenauer's quote is correct. See Earth's atmosphere#Composition. You've forgotten that a percentage moves the decimal two places. 380 parts per million is 0.0386%, which rounds to .04%. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about the decimal point, but it is does not serve a point to illustrate her error. Her point was that CO2 makes up a fraction of the atmosphere. She is correct. She was wrong in her fraction, but her intent was correct. Pointing out the error is undue weight and doesn't add anything other than to denegrate the individual which is a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the info on carbon dioxide. I don't think it violated WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. And it's not really even a close case. There are three main prongs listed for the BLP policy. First, no original research. This is satisfied because there is a source for the fact that Bachmann was wrong about CO2. Second, verifiability. This isn't an issue; everyone her agrees that she is wrong. The wikipedia article on Earth's atmosphere agrees that Bachmann is wrong. Third is neutral point of view which requires that an article represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So the removal of Bachmann's error is the action contrary to NPOV. Many sources have criticized Bachmann's remarks on CO2. To allow Bachmann's remarks to stand without noting any of the rebuttal, especially when on this particularly issue Bachmann is objectively wrong and the critics are objectively right, acts to bias the page in a pro-Bachmann direction. And it certainly is relevant. When Bachmann is making an argument about the significance of carbon dioxide, it is relevant to explore whether she is familiar with the basic facts about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Further, the language pointing out her error wasn't inflammatory (i.e. didn't include insulting epithets). --JamesAM (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Yes she misspoke about the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmostphere. However, that is irrelevant to her argument. To focus on an irrelevant part of her argument which serves only to denegrate the person is undue weight and is a BLP violation. It is not like she was trying to prove or state that CO2 was x amount, only that it was a natural compound in the atmosphere. The language doesn't have to be exlipicitly inflammatory to imply a certain meaning. It is clear that the point of inclusion is to imply that she is stupid and present a strawman argument against her, ie. her opinion is not valid because she misstated the amount of CO2 in the atmposhere. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead to remove the conservative republican from the lead sentence. Is there a "standard" for how the lead sentence of politicians is crafted? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead should summarize who she is and what she is about. She is a Conservative Republican American Politician. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we do that for uber liberal/progressive/whateverthetermisthesedays and rightfully so. Her political "leanings" ect should be covered in the body of the article. Leave the "labels" out of the lead sentence. Maybe add back in republican/democratic if that is "standard" but leave out the qualifer. --Tom (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A little checking shows that labels does not seem to be done. I picked a few of the more well known from both sides and haven't found any labels. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the bit about some doctrinal statement of the denomination she belongs to really belong here when the local pastor of her own congregation seems not to agree with it? This is an article about her, not about her church or the denomination her church belongs to. But if it's important that she belongs to a church that believes this, then it's probably important to include much more relevant information about the church, as in their teachings that are more relevant to daily life than obscure eschatological claims. If there's any information to be had about how she actually interacts with Catholics, that might prove relevant. I don't think its inclusion is really to shed any light on her, though. It's probably just an attempt to make her sound as extreme as possible without providing any context or even giving any indication of her own views. Parableman (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu

Why is the Swine Flu section in there? I don't see the need to catalog the historical mistakes of every politician. It would be worthy if she was claiming that a democratic president had some correlation with swine flu, but it doesn't appear that she said that from the description. So, why is this needed at all?

Seels (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is undue weight. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Health Care

An edit of mine regarding health care was reverted because a Wikipedian thought it was "OR". I don't think this is true. Bachmann extensively referenced[4] Betsy McCaughey’s July 24, article Deadly Doctors, [5] published in the New York Post. Sarah Palin cited Bachmann’s opinion of Dr. Emanuel[6] when explaining her "death panel" statement. If Palin referenced Bachmann for her opinions, then she did. Any original research regarding Bachmann's influence on the "death panel" debate was done by Palin, not by any Wikipedian.

As to the opinion that the edit was "drastic" or "negative", the relevant point should be whether it accurately reflects the opinions of Michele Bachmann, regardless of how one feels about it. Read what Bachmann had to say for herself. Here is the link again.[7] Or you can go to Palin's facebook page (link above) which has a link to the Bachmann speech on YouTube.

Also, I'm surprised that anyone that doesn't like "drastic" "negative" stuff would leave in the part that calls Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel a "Deadly Doctor", and leave out the reasons why this is dubious.

Yet again, one editor thought it was less drastic and negative to leave in the "Deadly Doctor" comment, and remove the reasons why the comment is dubious. And yet again, this editor used the phrase "OR" without reading the references. Any OR, again, was not done by any Wikipedian.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the main focus of this article is Bachmann, and "This is NOT an article about Sarah Palin". However, separating logically related facts does result in sophistry as much now as with the original sophists. The reason this article exists is because Bachmann is notable, and she is notable to the degree that she has an infuence on others.Jimmuldrow (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your intent and I appreciate your referencing, but I do think you have slightly overstepped the bounds of WP:COATRACK. Trim it down a bit and focus it more narrowly on Bachmann's specific influence on the discussion and I'll support its inclusion. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like a good suggestion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is still focused on Sarah Palin. This section is not relevant to Bachmann outside of her reading the article on the floor of the house. Additionally, I am curious why you are working on this section in the sandbox of FoggyNotion. It almost appears as if you have mupltiple accounts which is expressly forbiden. Arzel (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Palin is mentioned only to the extent that Bachmann influenced her views. I only use FoggyNotion for an extra sandbox.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, your section used several facebook references which from what I have been able to find are not considered reliable sources. Not to mention you used them to do original research. Arzel (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, Palin's facebook page does accurately reflect what she said and how Bachmann influenced her views, as opposed to whether anyone agrees or disagrees with them. It is used only for that purpose, as opposed to stating any opinion on its reliability. Also, doesn't the press confirm Palin's facebook statements with her spokesperson? Again, the OR was done by Bachmann and Palin, and this is very clear cut if you review the references. Should we tell Bachmann and Palin to stop doing OR?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quite so quick to call this WP:OR. It's reasonably well referenced. While I would agree that under most circumstances Facebook is not a reliable source, I think it is permissible under some circumstances. I wouldn't consider it a reliable source of anything other than what Sarah Palin said on her own Facebook, but this is exactly how it was used here. I think striking the section (or most of it) leaves the section incomplete and unbalanced. I don't think it's enough to say Bachmann contributed to the discussion without saying how she contributed to it. Nor do I think the paragraph deleted here was too focused on Palin, and I think it does much to balance the section. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 09:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No attribution

In the section on the Chris Matthews interview, in the portion about the followup conversation with Katrina Van D H and Pat Buchanan, there's a quote attributed to no one, but referred to as "he." Buchanan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyloo (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Political positions

In the bulleted section of Political Positions, most of the cited sources are dead. Of the two remaining sources, one backs up her position on drilling for energy. Another source on Gay Marriage links to the bill, but not her position on the bill. Now it may be true that all of this statements are true, but as it stands, almost none of them can be verified. Arzel (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon further examination, this whole section has dead links and is mostly tied to sources which cannot be checked. Some serious cleanup needs to be done. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care

I think the original version made very similar statements with a lot less space, especially about the Bachmann speech about the editorial. The basics (as pointed out by TIME and other reliable sources) are that the Bachmann / McCaughey theory was misleading, in that it used selective quoting to make it sound like Emanuel wanted to ration all of health care, as opposed to "very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines". I think the original version sums this up in much less space, and was better. Crackenstein said that TIME might be incorrect, according to Crackenstein.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The recent additions are not only blatantly POV and violate WP:BLP, but have very little to do with this article. It is not our job to "prove" whether Bachmann is right or wrong. Seeing as how Crackenstein is on an edit-war bender (having violated WP:3RR some time ago), I'll wait until tomorrow to revert it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly an attempt here to whitewash Emanuel's contradictory positions by cherry-picking supportive sources and quotes while ignoring those that run counter to the desired effect. Time's editorializing is not reliable. Bachmann said nothing about rationing all of health care. She did perhaps go too far in saying "watch out if you're disabled," but Emanuel's writings and statements indicate that he does support age-based rationing under some circumstances. He has clearly contradicted himself, but the entries here and on Emanuel's page do not address that. Thanks to one user dominating this page, it emphasizes Bachmann being wrong when it is not that simple. The selective editing and massaging of Emanuel's record I've seen here is demonstrative of why Wikipedia cannot be considered an authoritative source.Crackenstein (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an old proverb that states "when you point one finger at another, you're pointing three at yourself." It's applicable here as in fact, you are the one attempting to cherry-pick quotes in order to give a false impression (and removing quotes which clarify facts but that contradict your opinion). As one of the reliable sources in the article states "We agree that Emanuel’s meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited." By repeatedly trying to obfuscate those two separate points and change the specifics of his quote to "in some circumstances" you were being disingenuous. And by doing it a dozen or so times in a day and a half, you were in clear violation of wikipedia's policies on edit-warring. Also, this is not the place to debate the veracity of his statements. We rely on reliable sources to draw those conclusions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to get your facts right before popping off, but since you fancy yourself a gatekeeper of information, you might at least give it a try. I did not change a quote to "in some circumstances" "a dozen or so times in a day and a half." Given your clearly sloppy approach to editing, you could be excused for apparently not noticing there were no quotes around those three words and that they were not inserted anywhere near a dozen times. But it was simply an attempt to summarize. Obviously the only summarizing which you self-appointed arbiters of truth will accept are those that fit your ideological bent and agenda. You are not relying on reliable sources and furthermore are ignoring indications in other sources that support the BALANCE I was trying to insert in this clearly one-sided, disingenuous entry. Yet at every turn, although I did not remove all questionable characterizations of Bachmann's statements, every attempt at inserting some balance here was taken down. Raise your arrogant, ignorant eyes above this text and you'll see I'm not the only one who has noticed the obvious bias of this page. I did not remove anything from the entry that indicated Bachmann was distorting Emanuel's views regarding health care for the disabled. What I was doing was circumscribing the characterization of her distortion in a manner that could be supported by the facts and noting Emanuel's undeniable support for age-based rationing of some health care resources. You and jimmuldrow, however, are apparently only interested in one set of facts, namely those that support your dishonest attempt to mislead and whitewash the record. This experience has given me both disappointment in that I generally enjoy Wikipedia and find useful information on it, and encouragement in that it is nevertheless not considered an authoritative source of information on serious topics. You and jimmuldrow are doing your part to maintain the latter condition.Crackenstein (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil during discussions and remember to avoid attacking or insulting other editors in any way. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Harrison Bachmann and AmeriCorps

The story as presented in this edit is not an attack, just a statement of fact without presenting any conclusions to the reader. This does not demonstrate or even suggest hypocrisy on the part of Michele Bachmann; what her son does may disappoint or annoy her, but cannot constitute hypocrisy on her part. WP:BLP violations are unsourced or poorly sourced assertions that may do harm to a living person. Negative information is not libel if it comes from a reliable source. This is not a BLP violation, even if it is taken as negative information. It is also relevant, in the same way that the opinions of Michelle Obama were deemed relevant during her husband's campaign. We cannot whitewash every biographical article of all negative information, nor should we. We should remove unreliable information that may constitute libel. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Wilhelm. Marchije•^speak/_peek 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is it important or relevant to Michele Bachmann? Arzel (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is her son. Of course it is both important and relevant to her! I would say that by any measure her son is as relevant to her as Jeremiah Wright ever was to Barack Obama, and that controversy has a whole article of its own, not to mention Obama's trivial association with Bill Ayers, about which Bachmann and her supporters made much hay during the election last year. I'm not suggesting that we should compete with the off-wiki headlines of the election cycle for some sort of "fairness", but even on-wiki these have been deemed fair game, and WP:NPOV says what's good enough for one side is good enough for another. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is her son's joining of AmeriCorp relevant to Michele Bachmann? Arzel (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, because he is her son, and because she has been such a vocal critic of the same organization. This is certainly a notable event, as it has received coverage in all the major media outlets. But it rates only a single sentence here, which I would say is about due weight. If it were being treated as a major event, I could see objecting to that, but it's just a concise statement of fact, properly sourced. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 07:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So it is an attempt to link the two. This is a BLP violation, and attempt to link Bachmann with the actions of her son to show some sort of hypocrisy. It has no comparison to Wright or Ayers since Obama is not related to either of them. He chose to have an association with both of them, the same cannot be said of your children. Furthermore, there is no other reason to have it in that section if not to make some causal link. On top of this her son is not notable, he does not have his own article. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain exactly why you think this is a violation of WP:BLP. To counter your points above, a politician's associations, be they personal, professional or familial are all brought under public scrutiny. It makes no difference if the association is one of choice or one of circumstance. Also, I haven't heard any statements from Bachmann disowning her son. Presumably she still associates with him, even if she is annoyed with some of his choices. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "causal link", but I can think of several reasons to include this in the article. Finally, her son needn't be notable in his own right, nor to have his own article, to be considered for inclusion in the article text. WP does not have any policy or practice of exclusion based on any such criteria. I see no reason to exclude this other than an attempt to whitewash the article of anything that might be seen as contentious to the subject. Again, such is not the purpose of BLP. BLP is for protecting the article's subject from unsourced claims. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several aspect to BLP that need to be enforced and I think you answered your own question. The only purpose for addition is to show some sort of hypocrisy on the part of Bachmann. Her son is not notable in his own right and it would be undue weight to include such a meaningless piece of information when it has no relationship to Michele Bachmann. It would be like the attempt to focus on Romney's grandparents. IE, Mitt Romney is against Polygamy, however his grandparents moved to Mexico in order to continue to practice. That was ruled not acceptable on his article because the actions of his grandparents had NOTHING to do with him. Just as the actions of Bachmann's son (who is a legal adult) have NOTHING to do with her. Seriously, what does her son have to do with her views on AmeriCorps? Arzel (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN, part of BLP, states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The fact mentioned here is relevant, and while it has been used by some pundits to make certain arguments, no such argument is made here. It is stated simply and factually, and it's well-referenced. I don't see the problem. All I see is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument misattributed to WP:BLP. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again. What does her son's actions have to do with Michele Bachmann's stance on AmeriCorp? You have not presented a reason why it is notable to HER. This is guilt by association, nothing more. Arzel (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've found this thread on WP:3O. It is a bit of a borderline case, but my personal opinion is that the information added by Wilhelm Meis should stay in the article: a brief, cold sentence and nothing more, but can stay. It is referenced, relevant and has been discussed in media. There is really no sensible reason to keep it away, and for sure it is not a BLP violation. WP:WELLKNOWN, correctly linked above, applies here. That "her son has nothing to do with her" is difficult to sustain; the Mitt Romney example is not completely appliable as a precedent, because usually grandsons do not influence grandparents, but mothers do influence behaviour of sons. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I'll ask you the same question. What does Bachmann's son's actions have to do with Bachmann's stance on AmeriCorp? Also, How is it relevant? It is not wellknown, if it were or he were there would be more than two articles from reliable sources (both from the Star Tribune). Arzel (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there are plenty more than two articles, but I didn't see the point in adding more references than necessary. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll concur with the WP:3O (and remove it from the 3O page ^_^) to keep the information in the article - WP:WELLKNOWN says it all, and one sentence certainly does not violate WP:UNDUE. There's nothing in WP:BLP that would prohibit it either. MildlyMad^Contribs 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been over a week. Can anyone explain why this is relevant to the section? Arzel (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to explain the obvious. This has been taken to 3O and two 3Os have been given. Your constant reverting is an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument, nothing more, nothing less. The only reason I see for pushing this issue is POV-pushing. There is nothing in WP:BLP that says all information in a biographical article must be favorable, only that it must be verifiable and come from reliable sources. The edit in question meets those requirements and conforms to NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Is there anything else I can do to demonstrate that WP:Consensus supports the edit? How about WP:NPOVN? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can give a reason why I see no reason why it belongs. It is a guilt by association and nothing less. Give me a reason to include. Furthermore, let me remind you who is pushing a POV. I am not trying to change her words or beliefs about AmeriCorps, but you certainly seem to be trying to push into this section the actions of her son which have NOTHING to do with her views. Arzel (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, it has been explained to you several times why it belongs and it can stay. Plus, there is no policy supporting the removal of such information. Consensus is to keep such information. and as such, it should stay. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's take it to WP:NPOVN and then we can finally put the issue to bed. I'd take it to NPOVN myself, but since I support its inclusion, wouldn't that be a bit WP:POINTY? Your move, Arzel. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A RfC maybe is more appropriate. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, please let's wait. If Arzen decides to stay within consensus this time, there is no need to stir up things more. Let's wait and see. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with concensus, but what we currently have is not concensus but force by number. Until either of you can provide a single reason why this has ANY SINGLE THING to do with her views on AmeriCorp is it undue weight, and completely unrelated. I don't even need a concensus to remove information that is nothing more than an attempt to link and present a hypocritical point of view against Bachmann and thus is a BLP violation. BTW, if you two want to help me do something constructive, why not help me address the multitude of dead links rather than encourage those sections to simply get deleted. Arzel (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I didn't even know who Bachmann was. I am an Italian living in the UK, go figure how much am I interested in Bachmann herself. So I am not trying to maker her look an "hypocrite" (and that's entirely your interpretation: mine is that it is a simply ironical fact of life) Still, the fact that her son joined something she is vehemently opposed to has been noted by several sources, and it is a quirk that is of some relevance on her biography -it doesn't happen every day that Richard Dawkins's son becomes pope, isn't it? And I see no BLP issue with that: it is a simple fact, we do not hide sources facts for WP:WELLKNOWN, which is part of BLP. Also no UNDUE issues if it is kept to a simple, sourced sentence in a long and complex article. Finally, yes, consensus is "force by numbers": if 99 say A and 1 says B, consensus is on A. That's all. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact is people here are using her son as a political hammer to try and point her out as a hypocrite. Her son's actions have nothing to do with her view, and if your view is that it is simply an ironical fact of life, then that gives even less validity for inclusion as wp is NOT a collection of random pieces of information. There is no other reason for inclusion than to make her look foolish. Arzel (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, please stop edit warring. I understand you disagree, but you won't solve it by repeatedly deleting information you don't agree with refusing any compromise with other editors. Also, all the "political hammer" statements are entirely your own POV. As for me, it's an "ironical fact of life", but it is a notable and reliably sourced ironical fact of life. As such, it deserves to stay. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is there even a section on the Americorps? Because she made a comment? That section seems like a strech. The son's actions/job work should probably stay in his bio article. Do we cover the other children's work, if she has other children? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is "ironic" doesn't mean that it is worth inclusion. This section is about HER VIEWS. What is so hard for people to understand about this? Arzel (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reported this to the NPOV review because of the lack of any rational reason for inclusion. Arzel (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to side with Arzel (talk) on this one. There is absolutely no reason for this information to be included on the page of the Congresswoman other than to attempt to push an unflattering view of her. If you want to put this information somewhere, go to the Americorps site and add a "controversies" section, or start an article on the Congresswoman's son.Rapier1 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't go in the way way back machine to change grandfather's behavior. Bachmann should have an influence on son's behavior through adulthood. But also, relevence is for her behavior- why is Bachmann against this program which employs her son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.231.193 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

From NPOVN

Saw this at NPOVN. It is clear to me that the relevance of this fact is that political opponents of Bachmann publicized it to embarrass her. Nothing wrong with that: that's the name of the game in politics. Has Bachmann yet commented on this? Hopefully she will in the near future and we can include her response. So I say that it is a good idea to attribute the publicity surrounding this fact to her political opponents. This ought to make everyone a bit more comfortable. Or maybe everyone will hate the proposed treatment. Note sure. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's all that relevant to her biography. If it were a political attack which garnered a lot of attention in third-party reliable sources it might cross that threshold, but that hasn't happened. Yes, it's ironic. But does it add anything to an encyclopedic portrait of Bachmann? Not really. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag needed A.S.A.P.

I saw this article mentioned on a user talk page so I came and checked it out. Much of it reads like a hit piece. A lot of clean up is needed. I realize Bachman is controversial, but our sourcing and NPOV standards still need to be met. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a tag is meaningless unless you have specific and actionable content policy issues related to this article. As the guidelines for the tag state, "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• "She defeated her Democratic challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg, in the 2008 election in a race that had gained national attention following her controversial televised call for the media to investigate members of Congress for perceived anti-American bias, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama" is undue weight for the opening paragraphs
• The bits about the education dispute are cherry picked and written in a way that's pointy and not encyclopedic.
• The paragraph about Dobson "trying to engineer a victory" is also undue weight and needs to be condensed into what's actually relevant (if any of it. This isn't an article on Dobson. He supports conservatives, she's conservative. We get it. A mention at most).
• The part sourced to a 28 minute debate isn't appropriate unless proper sourcing can be found.
• etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Those are all fair points.

1) I agree. It's undue weight for the lede and the sentence construction is kind of tendentious because it contrasts two separate points. It's basically saying "despite" without actually using that word.

2) Which part about education? Her own education or the part about the charter school? I don't see any problems with the section on her educational background. The charter schools thing might go into a little too much detail about one particular detractor. That could probably be trimmed/summarized better. I'll look at the referenced article in the Star Tribune.

3) It's notable that she was one of the Christian conservatives that Dobson threw his considerable political weight behind when she was first elected to office, but that section could be trimmed and balanced a little. And, yes, there's no need to put the phrase "trying to engineer a victory" in quotes. It reads like a scare quote.

4) I'm not sure which part that is, I haven't read all of the cites, but if the only ref for something is a transcript of a debate, yes, it needs more citations from reliable third-party sources. Pulling quotes from a raw transcript or first-person essay is usually WP:OR when it involves anything controversial.

I think you've made some helpful comments, and when the pageprotect ends, we can address them. As stated earlier, it doesn't look like there's any need for the tag, though. Discussion is sufficient to handle whatever problems may exist in the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay Loony. I appreciate your thoughtful and considerate reply. Certainly Bachman is controversial and has come in for criticism, so I have no problem with those issues and concerns being included, as long as it's done in a way that is encyclopedic and appropriate. In fact I think a sentence in the opening paragraphs about her being an outspoken conservative who has been featured in debates and media appearances (pehaps noting the key issues that are controversial) would be fine. We'll see how it goes once protection is lifted. The bit sourced to a debate (and another source that didn't look good to me, but I forget what it was now) relates to the bits startign with "During a debate televised by WCCO on October 28, 2006,... and deals with whether her church thinks the pope is the anti-christ. :) If her church is controversial I think a mention with whatever key bits is fine, but the way it's written and sourced now is beyond even strethcing it. Thanks again for your kind consideration and discussion of the issues. I appreciate it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The bit about her church believing the Pope is the anti-Christ is unfair. If you search the WELS Web site, the only mention of "anti-Christ" is one that says that Luther taught that the Pope is the anti-Christ. There are many things taught by churches 500 years ago that are no longer taught today (acceptance of slavery comes to mind) that it may be hard to find official disavowals of. The statement that her church teaches that the Pope is the anti-Christ should be removed.

Okay, I see the bit you're talking about. Yeah, that's problematic because it's just a transcript and adding the statement from her church is WP:SYNTH. It is worth including the fact that she disputes a rumor that has circulated about her (if it's worth mentioning the rumor at all). Since it was a Star Tribune reporter that asked the question, there's probably a Star Tribune article on the subject which would pass WP:RS, (assuming we decide it also passes WP:WEIGHT). In general, as with all of these pages on controversial politicians, I think it's important to not confuse notability with "famousness." She is famous because of various controversies, but that's not where her notability comes from. She is still, after all, a member of Congress. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight: Attempts at clean-up are promptly reverted by ideologically driven users. So don't invest much time in trying to insert balance here; it will most likely be stricken.Crackenstein (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This article (especially the first paragraphs--) is (mostly) written from the perspective of someone on the left judging a person on the right. Thus, use Wikipedia to understand the somewhat leftist view of the world, and use other less biased sources to balance out your research.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bachmann and health care

I agree that the section is more about her time in congress (the summary I gave in the first edit was incorrect), but I still object to the inclusion of her fundraising numbers. The section stands as a summary of her actions as a member of congress, as opposed to her fundraising efforts. If her overall fundraising efforts are worthy of inclusion, I could see including a separate section on the matter, but including them, and particularly including them in the context in which they are included, has the effect of pointing readers toward an opinion about Bachmann's actions. I think that fundraising figures are normally not included unless there's some actual noteworthiness to them. Trilemma (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I'm busy off-wiki right now, but I was going to suggest perhaps breaking up the article a bit differently, rather than having a huge section 110th Congress and a huge section 111th Congress, perhaps deal with separate issues separately, without necessarily lumping it all under these huge sections. (i.e. Fundraising could be dealt with separately, if at all.) What do you think? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think fundraising figures can be noteworthy, though I do agree they should not be presented in a way that gives undue weight or leads readers to a conclusion of a conflict of interest (unless a direct allegation of a conflict of interest can be reliably sourced, and even then, we must be careful to express the views of sources without adopting the view). If the figures are unfit for inclusion on their own merits, let's get rid of them, but I just want to make sure we're including/excluding for the right reasons. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Her fundraising statistics are clearly being used to try and imply that her views are influenced because of them. These continued guilt by association connections that people try to make her are quite anoying. It would be nice if people didn't try to turn this article into a political attack against her. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's all keep a cool head. We will need to work together if we are to improve the article. Accusations of bias, IDHT arguments, and POV pushing will not help us do anything useful here. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be restructured, but in the mean time, I do have to agree with Arzel that the current juxtaposition of her actions with her fundraising figures will inevitably suggest to readers influence. So, until we can work out a better format that could conceivably have a section for fundraising figures, I think it's best to leave it out. Trilemma (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Then let's not juxtapose them. It's a perfectly valid, sourced fact. Move it elsewhere in the article if you think that, but don't remove it. Reywas92^Talk 02:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I truly cannot understand what is the problem. The section is entitled "Health care". Insurance companies in the USA deal with health care. The fact that she's financed by these companies is a relevant and sourced part of her relationship with the health care. All this "guilt by association" thing is pure nonsense: it's just matter of putting facts in the relevant sections, saying that we want to make her "guilt by association" is a completely unwarranted deduction and accusation of POV which I refuse. I understand people can dislike facts: but facts are facts. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 08:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The subheading is under 111th Congress, which infers that the material covered will be about her actions as a congresswoman--how she votes, what she says, etc. this does not extend to who donates to her campaigns. Think of it this way: All material covered in these sections should be about actions initiated by Bachmann, as a congresswoman. This extends to notable reactions to certain actions that gain a certain level of attention. But they spring from her actions as a congresswoman, not the actions of private individuals and companies in their contributing habits. I think that a separate section on campaign fundraiser statistics could potentially be a viable section, depending on the sources and information contained within. But that is not pertinent to the sections on her actions as a congresswoman. Trilemma (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I think that a hypothetical 'fundraising' section would fall as a separate category under a broader 'congressional career' section. Something like this:

==Congressional Career==

===110th Congress===

===111th Congress===

===Fundraising===

At least, that's my idea for it. Trilemma (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds nice. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

StarTribune

Article by Pat Doyle dated August 2, 2009, cited Center for Responsive Politics as their source. I went to their site [[8]] to confirm. They released new Money to Congress figures and statistics October 16, 2009. Michele Bachmann didn't even come close to 8th overall on contributions for 2010 cycle. I have links to top 20 overall (senate and house), and just the House for the relevant categories - Heath Professionals, and Insurance, which includes Finance, Michele's House Committee. Please use the links, explore, and comment below.[[9]][[10]][[[11]][[12]]tsheiimneken (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as you can see those pages you are linking to are based on different FEC reports than the Star Tribune article since FEC reports are due Oct 15. The Star Tribune article is accurate in that as of that date (August 2, 2009) Bachmann was 8/435. Now, after this new FY2009Q3 she's currently ranked 21. But, since that's original research, I'm no great wiki editor here, I think you need to leave it in unless you can cite some source or whatever that gives her new ranking or maybe change the information to reflect that she was ranked 8/435 and is now 21/435 but I don't think there's any reason to remove the original information. 69.180.174.228 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the same as Original Research. If there is evidence that something is false it must be removed. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This can all be easily resolved by adding the qualifier "As of 2 August 2009 Bachmann ranked eighth of 435 in...". It's not "false", Arzel; let's stop throwing around spurious claims of deceit. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to confirm the numbers presented by Doyle, I can not. Also his blog/article is highly deceitful, and his others have smeared Bachmann. For instance, Barney Frank heads House Finance Committee, which Bachmann is a member. Frank is an outspoken single-payer advocate, Bachmann advocates for private health care. He has received 278k from the insurance industry for 2010[[13]]. She has received 114k for 2010[[14]]. What does this say??? He has received 13k from health industry, she has 32k for same industry, maybe this is more significant to healthcare intentions and donors. I can go on in further detail, including how 40% of Barney Frank's contributions are from out-of-state[[15]], compared to 23% for Bachmann[[16]], and there's still more... Either way, source unconfirmed and out of date, I'm taking it down until this can be resolved. tsheiimneken (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's proper for you to use your original research to decide that a reliable source is wrong. WP:V is the governing policy, and is prima facie satisfied by the Star Tribune publication -- there is no requirement that editors must be able to independently verify information already contained in a reliable source. If you have some other reliable source that challenges the Star Tribune then we should present that source as well, per WP:NPOV. You're welcome to disagree, but I think we should stick to what the sources say instead of the synthesis of thought you provide as justification for removal. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am more than happy to use a reliable source. I do however, question the source provided, and used the Center of Responsive Politics, cited as Doyle's source, to question the original research. I also find it intellectually dishonest to imply Bachmann is in the pocket of private insurance, without proof. Also, the insurance industry is vast, mostly not health, as demonstrated by Barney Frank's donors. Maybe he's in their pocket also? Even Dan Rather was found to be unreliable once. I have tried to prove the source is factual, I cannot and implore others to do so. tsheiimneken (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We're stating an objective fact regarding a relevant point; there is no synthesis or accusation stated; readers are certainly able to (1) read the source for themselves, and (2) draw their own conclusions. Our job here isn't to shield readers from relevant sourced information, and you're most certainly using your own original research and synthesis to refute a reliable source (quite inappropriate, as is the obsession with Barney Frank in this discussion). You're welcome to add sources that challenge the Star Tribune's story, however you may not use your own research to simply reject a reliable source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't sufficiently represent my objection. I believe there is no correlation betweens one's feeling on the public option, and insurance industry donors, i.e. real estate, financial, etc. I used Rep. Frank to make this point, being the polar opposite of Rep. Bachmann, except for their shared influence in the House Finance Committee. A month-long collaborative investigation by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics published Oct. 1, 2009, represents an extremely reliable source[[17]]. This is the top 60 recipients in all of congress from donors of anything health care related since 2007, Bachmann is not on list, two Minnesota members of Congress are, including a '08 Freshman Senator. The StarTrib's article just isn't reliable given all that has been presented. tsheiimneken (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite get past your belief that there is no correlation between (1) a politician's stance regarding legislation that will affect an industry, and (2) the money said politician has accepted from said industry that will be affected by said legislation. Do you think they just give money to politicians for no reason? Regardless, reliable sources don't become unreliable because a wikipedia editor doesn't believe in or agree with the findings. To avoid WP:OR, you'll need to find other reliable sources that challenge the Star Tribune's assertion -- no offense, but your research skills and analytical abilities aren't rigorously fact checked or published, which is what WP:RS requires. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If the contention is that there is a correlation between the two, then the only reason for inclusion is to make a political point and violate NPOV. That aside, the issue at hand seems to be how to prove you are innocent. It is highly unlikely that a reliable source will come out and now say that Bachmann is now the x ranked member in the house recieving money from the health care industry. At the same time we are not introducing OR if we remove the contested information for which there is evidence that it is incorrect. A better solution for keeping would be to find additional sources that state her ranking, as of now, however, we have one dubious source that can easily be shown to not be quite accurate. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's only true if you leave the timeframe unreferenced, which is easily solved (see text above). It was true when it was written, so there is absolutely no justification for your repeatedly inappropriate claims of "dubious" sourcing that is "not quite accurate." I find it completely irresponsible that you continue such antics after having been called out by multiple editors on this point, and I find it difficult to assume good faith that you're trying to be accurate and improve the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I think you are confused as to the Insurance Industry. If we were talking about the Health-Insurance Industry, I could see a direct correlation, see Barney Frank. Insurance Industry - Health, life, property and car insurance companies, agents and brokers are all included in this broad category. We should include the broadness of this sector, Bachmann 21 of 435, according to agreed upon source, Center for Responsive Politics. Health Sector - Physicians and other health professionals are traditionally the largest source of federal campaign contributions in this sector, pharmaceutical companies and HMOs are consistently generous givers. Bachmann ranks 230 of 435 according to same verified source. Probably nothing should be done, but if we do, we must keep it NPOV. Then do all the others members of Congress, I guess. Somebody please tell IP Address that there are 535 members of Congress.

I think we have have resolved the issues discussed. Thank you for all contributions. tsheiimneken (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So, less than two days for discussion and you're ready to proclaim a consensus based on yourself and one other noted partisan editor? What's the rush to close discussion? Given previous activity and discussions on this page, this sure seems like a transparent attempt to "close the books" before any else can render their opinions. Given Arzel's repeated attempt to make unfounded claims that the source is "unreliable" and "dubious", I don't have much faith there was much consideration to what policy actually says. Discussion should continue. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, at no time did I say that the STRIB was "unreliable". I really wish you would not make such statements. As for partisanship, I am not the one trying to make a political point by including a debatable statistic that is clearly being used for synthesis purposes. Arzel (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, what you actually said was "we have one dubious source that can easily be shown to not be quite accurate"; your intent has clearly to try and characterize this source as "dubious" and "false", which is particularly dishonest considering it has been pointed out numerous times that the story was accurate and correct at the time it was written. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought we found a consensus on the validity of the source, Center for Responsive Politics. If you refute this source's published analysis, please do so? This is the source, of the original source. Why take Doyle's interpretations of this source months ago, when we have current statistics from this same source he cited. These statistics are easily verifiable from FEC disclosures. I can debate why contributions from a vast insurance industry would be in an exclusive health care section, but what's the point. Our disclaimer, or explanation of the insurance industry should be sufficient in informing those who are confused by industries, as a whole. tsheiimneken (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How did you figure that? You're the only person who's ever mentioned that source, and no one has ever indicated that there was consensus regarding any source other than the Star Tribune. The rest of the commentors (other than arzel) seem inclined to include the Star Tribune source -- I have no doubt that WP:RSN would make the same finding regarding its reliability. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the one that stated the StarTrib's article was "accurate and correct." As I pointed out, Pat Doyle based his article on the finding of the Center for Responsive Politics. You can see how I assumed you approved of the CRP, as you approve of Doyle's article. Now that these statistics have been moved to a new Fundraising section, I'm not sure proceed. I know that Bachmann's 2010 re-election attempt will be notable, her seat is hot and her opposition is well funded, but this section's evolution will probably be slow. How long have you and Arzel been going at each other? I've seen you guys on other talk pages:) tsheiimneken (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Proactive POV article clean-up suggestions

For a couple of months now I've been observing the edits to this article and have been following the resutling POV discussion and I thought I'd weigh in.

Although it really shouldn't have any bearing on the matter, I feel I should qualify that my own personal politcal views lie more towards the left side of the spectrum (if you give any creedence to such labels), and I do not agree with most of what I have read about Bachmann's views or politics, however I do believe that this article is slanted and needs a POV clean-up.

In an effort to bring this discussion to a more productive level, I believe that those who object to some of the content of this article could help by providing actual examples of how they would improve said content. Lets be proactive rather than reactive.

Having said that, I would like to make an editorial suggestion with regards to the opening paragraph:

Bachmann's "anti-American" statement

Currently the opening paragraph contains the following sentence:

She defeated her Democratic challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg, in the 2008 election in a race that had gained national attention following her controversial televised call for the media to investigate members of Congress for perceived anti-American bias, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

1. This statement almost makes it sound as if she defeated her Democratic opponent because of her "controversial" statement regarding the "perceived" anti-American bias of Barack Obama.
2. I think it would be better if we would quote her directly—her statement was: "Absolutely, I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views." And again, as per the article she later clarified: "I did not, nor do I, question Barack Obama's patriotism ... I did not say that Barack Obama is anti-American nor do I believe that Barack Obama is anti-American."

I fail to see how her statement meant that she believes that Obama has an "anti-American bias". She was concerned that Obama "may" have had anti-American views, but did not state that these views gave Obama any sort of bias, nor did she state that all or even the majority of his views were anti-American. So in view of those 2 points I would like to propose the following revision to that sentence:

She defeated her Democratic challenger, Elwyn Twinkleberg in the 2008 election; Bachmann gained national media attention during the run-up to the election when she told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that she was concerned that Barack Obama "may have anti-American views".

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

Cheers --Marchije•^speak/_peek 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with your entire argument, but I do think your proposal is in some ways better than the status quo. May I suggest adding the following (and appropriate refs):

and called for a media exposé on whether the views of members of Congress were "pro-America or anti-America."

I think it was as much this call for a media exposé of Congress, if not more so, that contributed to the nation-wide controversy over her remarks. This introduces the heart of the issue without repeating the details already stated in the body of the article. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you watch the interview with Chris Matthews you will note that the Congresswoman was speaking about the media and how they operate. When Matthews asked her "Does Liberal mean anti-American", she went on to talk about Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, Matthews ignores these references and asks if the Congresswoman is concerned about Obama's possible anti-American views...she states that in her opinion the American people (at least those she is representing) are concerned about possible Anti-American views (presumably because of Obama's past associations with Ayers and Wright). She specifically states that she would not call Speaker Pelosi or Senate Leader Reid "Anti-American", and Matthews presses her to explain why she "connected" the terms "Liberal, Leftist, and Anti-American". SHe immediately refers back to Wright and Ayers and says that these are "strange mentors" for Obama. Mathews asks "How many Congresspeople, members of Congress fit into that Anti-American crowd you discribe", to which the Congresswoman states "You'd have to ask them Chris, I'm focusing on Barak Obama and the people he's associated with". Matthews presses the point stating "But he's a Senator from the State of Illinios, he's one of the members of Congress you suspect of being Anti-American. How many people in the Congress of the United States do you think are Anti-American. You've already suspected Barak Obama, is he alone or are there others?" The Congresswoman fires back with "What I would say is that the News Media should do a penatrating expose and take a look...I wish they would...I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they Pro-America, or Anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that."

At that point, she is commentating on the state of the American news media. She never stated she thought members of Congress were anti-American. The only time this question was asked, she denied it outright.Rapier1 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you could watch the interview and get that from it. When she talks about an exposé, she said it with urgency. It was pretty clear from watching the interview that she was implying that she thought a media search for "anti-America" members of Congress would bear fruit. --JamesAM (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is pure WP:SYNTHESIS on your part. You are drawing a conclusion based on your perception of her tone and what she could be implying by it. Look at the transcript, all you have to do is read what she said. Rapier (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Refutation of Bachmann's Positions

I would like to suggest that this is not the place to make the case for views opposed to Michele's. Here are the problems I see with the objectivity of this piece.

Is it necessary to question Michele's integrity when she states that she does not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist and that her pastor has clearly taught that the Pope is not the Antichrist? It is true that from Martin Luther on Lutherans (with the exception of the Missouri Synod) have identified the Pope with the Antichrist. But according to Michele neither she nor her pastor agree with that non-fundamental article of faith of the Lutheran church. If it is necessary to point out that she is in disagreement with standard Lutheran doctrine on that point could it be done in a way that doesn't question her integrity?

If it is truly significant that when Michele spoke in a church CREW filed a complaint against the church with the IRS, wouldn't it be equally significant that we never heard a peep out of CREW when Bill and Hillary Clinton and any number of other Democrat politicians did the same? It seems that the main purpose for including this information is to create a negative impression of Michele. If it is a significant controversy, perhaps pointing out CREW's partisanship might be useful in the interest of objectivity.

Does Michele's statement that the mercury in CCF light bulbs is a pollutant need a refutation? True, there is an opposing view, but is this the place for it? And the statement that there is 200 times more mercury in a tooth filling than in a CCF bulb is just simply silly. It is an irrelevant factoid. The mercury in your teeth is bound up in an alloy of mecury, silver and copper called amalgam and is quite a different thing from the elemental mercury in a CCF bulb. It is stretching for a refutation of Bachmann's position which does not belong here.

Again when reporting that Michele believes the Constitution only authorizes Congress to create a census that is an actual enumeration of the residents of the US, the assertion that she is incorrect is a statement of opinion, not fact. It has no place in this article. No matter how many sources disagree with Michele, it is still only their opinion.

Finally, the coverage of the "death panel" remark may be distorting or obscuring Michele's view as much as she is supposed to be distorting the views of Ezekiel Emanuel. Michele believes that Obama care will result in rationing of health care. That is the relevant fact, not whether she distorted Emanuel's position. It may be Ezekiel's opinion that she distorted his statements, but again it is only opinion. This is not the place for sorting out which opinion is correct, even if that were possible.

Pwhanson (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a refutation of Bachmann's positions, but a rebuttal from people who have an interest in her statement(s). You covered a lot of issues here, but regarding the statement about Bachmann's mercury teeth had with Bachmann's light bulb position, which had been controversial. Should we just say, "she believes in this, that, and this..." with no quotes from opposing and sourced views on her statements? Then Wiki just becomes a political commercial for Bachmann. These issues - including the rebuttals, have been picked up by the media, so this is not original research. It is not for us to sugar coat her message(s). If she has detractors from her message, they should be quoted - and linked.

"... not a refutation ... but a rebuttal", hmmm, very interesting (yes I see the distinction you are trying to make, but it's like saying "I didn't shoot him your honor, someone else held the gun, I just pulled the trigger"). But to answer your question: Yes! the article should just stick to Bachmann's history and positions on the issues. This is not the place for rebuttals of Bachmann's views (regardless of whose voice you use to present the rebuttals). And no, that does not make the article a political commercial, unless you mean to suggest that the Wikipedia article on Tarryl Clark is a politcal commercial. Someone reading this article wants to know who she is and what positions she takes and what causes she champions. The reader can decide for himself if he agrees with Bachmann. This is an article about Michele Bachmann and would be incomplete without presenting her publicly held opinions. It is not an article about her political opponents and their opinions. Only to the extent which her political opponents and/or their opinions define who Michele Bachmann is are they relevant to this article. Pwhanson (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-Christ statement is *very* appropriate, as she clarified an accusation on her own terms, rather than Wiki just saying, "...her church believes that the Pope is the Anti-Christ...". She was quoted in her and her pastor's defense. I think she would be satisfied with that.

My objection originally was that the way the paragraph reads, it puts the statement of the Lutheran doctrine at the end as if to dispute the preceding Bachmann quote. Perhaps a better way to present the controversy would be to suggest that Mr. Kessler asked the question because it is standard Lutheran doctrine (to equate the Pope and the Antichrist) but that Michele denied that she or her pastor held to that particular doctrine, end of story. However, on further reflection I doubt that would tell the true story either. Recall how when Michele questioned if Barack Obama's pastor's teachings about America might have adversely affected him, she was roundly castigated for stepping over the line. I don't recall Kessler joining the chorus of condemnation, but neither did he defend her. And that seems a bit hypocritical, given that he asked a similar question of her 2 years earlier (in essence, do you agree with what your church teaches?), the main difference being that his question was far less relevant to Bachmann's politics than hers was to Obama's. It seems to me that this is a manufactured controversy illustrative of media bias against Congresswoman Bachmann, but provides no serious insight into her politics. Pwhanson (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with some of the edited statements, be bold and edit them. Lets see where it goes. Dinkytown talk 03:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

New source

The new wave of female firebrands striking fear into liberal America. This was recently published and could do with being incorporated into the article, it should be a good source of balance and commentary about this politician. I'm not sure where to add it though, any ideas? Smartse (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

References

The links to the references need to be researched and updated. I clicked on the [90] one, and it brought me to 89 instead (it you hover over, you can see in the browser status bar it says 89 instead of 90]. The reference went to some blog entry with no data relevant to what was being written about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.218.125 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, every reference on the page is labeled as one more than its corresponding number on the reflist. Does anyone know why exactly this is? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't happen when I try it, is it still doing it for you? Smartse (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Farm subsidies criticism

What are people's feeling on how much to include about anti-socialist Michelle's $250,000 payment from the government. should we just list the fact or list prominement commentators comments about Michelle being a welfare queen. [18]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 08:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, we could read the article, and see that her father-in-law managed the farm for the years the farm received subsidies, therefore she didn't receive payment for anything. This appears to be a misleading smear article. Now, if it turns out that someone can prove that she was filling out the tax forms, or the subsidies were her doing, then it becomes worth mentioning. Until then, it is unproven slander, which is not allowed on a BLP. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 10:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Management of the farm is one thing, ownership is another. The subsidies flow to the benefit of the owner, not whoever happened to be managing the farm. Bachmann did indeed receive payment as a result of the subsidies. The source states:

Bachmann’s financial disclosure forms indicate that her personal stake in the family farm is worth up to $250,000. They also show that she has been earning income from the farm business, and that the income grew in just a few years from $2,000 to as much as $50,000 for 2008. This has provided her with a second government-subsidized income to go with her job as a government-paid congresswoman who makes $174,000 per year (in addition to having top-notch government medical benefits). “If she has an interest in a farm getting federal subsidy payments, she is benefiting from them,” Sandra Schubert, director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, told Gannett News Service in 2007, when the subsidies to Bachmann were first publicly disclosed. [19]

I agree with you that we shouldn't imply that she filled out incorrect tax forms or the like, but we can and should report the undisputed fact that she benefited from this government subsidy program. JamesMLane t c 18:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with making this known. However, full disclosure is the most important part. Bachmann does not own the entire farm. Note that the source points out what her "personal stake" is. Meaning, she does not fully own the farm, and she (probably) does not make major decisions on the farm. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the term "welfare queen" is completely unwarranted in an encyclopedia. It also seems odd to me to stir up controversy about a case where a Congresswoman recieved benefit from a law, properly filed tax returns, yet in 2007 felt that the law was unneeded and voted against it, despite the fact that she benefited from it. This sounds more like integrity than hypocracy. Rapier1 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we wouldn't use the term "welfare queen" except in a verbatim quotation of a criticism attributed to a prominent spokesperson for that point of view. Perhaps less obviously, we would not damn Bachmann for hypocrisy any more than we would praise her for integrity. I'm referring only to including the facts. The reader can add the commentary. JamesMLane t c 23:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you have her do with the subsidy money? She's also against big government, so returning it to Uncle Sam would make no less a hypocrite according to your logic. It seems like you are looking to disparage her any way possible including with BLP violating thread headers. Maybe you should edit elsewhere? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, what does any of that have to do with improving this article? Personal attack notwithstanding, I think that JamesMLane raises a valid point with regards to stating the facts and leaving out the commentary. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that using BLP violating thread titles is inappropriate and that encyclopedia articles aren't for disparaging article subjects is not a personal attack. But making misrepresentations is a civility violation. If there are reliable sources discussing this subsidy issue then by all means lets see them or add them. It seems to me to be the height of triviality, and taking a cursory look at the article I see it is already chock-o-block full of poorly sourced smears. So if anything more is added it may tip the scales in favor of a clean-up. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's always this temptation to treat the bio of a controversial person, especially a politician, as if it were an election flier rather than an encyclopedia article. This is the wrong standard. A fact can be an interesting part of Bachmann's bio, and therefore worth including, without being of any importance as a reason to vote for her or against her -- precisely because this is an encyclopedia article, not a polemic. That's why your question "What would you have her do" isn't germane. You imply that even an undisputed fact must be excluded from the bio if that fact is being used by Bachmann's opponents in ways that you personally consider to be unsound. That's not the standard, though. We don't have to reach a consensus about whether this fact shows her to be a hypocrite, as her critics argue, or whether it shows her to have integrity, as Rapier1 argued above. We can just include it and let the reader decide what, if anything, to make of it. I'm certain that we'll have significant numbers of readers in both camps, along with many who think it's just an interesting part of her bio. JamesMLane t c 07:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JML, and I think we can and should include facts without making hay over all the TV political spin. I also think terms like "welfare queen" shouldn't be included here in any way. I would support removing the term from this thread heading even. There's just no need for that sort of baiting in an encyclopedia. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what is stated, the use of Truthdig is not acceptable. It is a highly partisan site and this is being used purely for political purposes to try and smear the subject. Find a neutral source if it is going to be included, this is a WP:BLP not a gossip rag. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, as explained in the past, what you believe a site is being "used for" is irrelevant; if you want to argue that it fails WP:RS that's fine (I honestly am not familiar with the source), but your objection as presently worded has no basis in policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that a source should generally be assessed with regard to what's being asserted. If a "partisan" site (i.e., one with an obvious political orientation, like Truthdig or Fox News) conveys a supposed report from an anonymous informant, there's no way it can be verified or disproved. Material like that must be considered very carefully. On the other hand, if there's no reasonable basis for disputing the assertion, then that's a different story. Here the Truthdig report is based on Congressional disclosure forms filed by Bachmann. If Truthdig is just making stuff up because they're a bunch of partisan leftist moonbats, then one of Bachmann's supporters will surely point that out. (Of course, Truthdig does not just make stuff up, which is why we're justified in using that source.) JamesMLane t c 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, good points. Arzel has exhibited a pattern of misunderstanding of WP:NPOV; specifically, he asserts that "sources must be neutral" and "ideological sources don't qualify", whereas WP:NPOV mandates that Wikipedia content must be presented neutrally (not that sources must be neutral). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between opinion pieces and news pieces. JamesMLane refers to Fox News and Wall Street Journal as being partisan, however they do have reputable news devisions. Fox News would be an acceptable source, however using Glenn Beck as the only source for an assertation would not stand on wikipedia. Similarly this source, as it is clearly an opinion piece, is unacceptable as the only source for the claim at hand. --Tdl1060 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What he said /\. Opinion pieces are not adequate for content additions of this type, especially in a biography article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. The so-called "opinion piece" uses facts from offficial U.S. government publications. Are you seriously suggesting that the editors of Truthdig, because they dislike Bachmann's politics, are outright lying about what the data show? I remind you that the editors of Truthdig are living persons and that BLP applies to talk-page comments. Your utterly unsupported attack on their honesty is itself a violation of the BLP policy. And, of course, there is still not the slightest indication of any good-faith dispute about the accuracy of the report.

Anyway, to try to avert further time wasting on this folly, I'll add a nonpartisan source, Politics Daily, an AOL entity that's not generally considered a hotbed of Bolshevism but which concluded that the Truthdig story merited reporting. We can assume that Politics Daily, which our article reports is noted for the professionalism of its staff, did enough fact-checking to satisfy the editors that the story was accurate. (Incidentally, the story was also picked up by The Politico, whose CEO used to work for Ronald Reagan and which is widely considered on the left to have a conservative bias.) JamesMLane t c 17:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unlock it and fix it

It's understandable that an article about such a controversial figure gets locked against editing, but it shouldn't have been locked with howlers like this in place: "Bachmann's office quickly clarified ..." that she was speaking metaphorically about the "armed and dangerous" stuff. That's not neutral at all. It entirely embraces the Bachmann camp's pov. It assumes that people were somehow confused by what she said, and that all that was needed was "clarification". A neutral description of the damage control response would have said "Bachmann's office quickly asserted that..." etc etc. Or "stated that". Clarified" is a heavily loaded word, and an immediate tip-off to a non-neutral tone. 72.229.55.245 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, rather than worrying about unlocking this and subjecting it to moonbat vandalism, people could get an established account and attempt to edit using WP:RS according to the rules of WP:BIO. Just a thought Rapier (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Or read the source. The source says that Bachmann's office quickly clarified. The whole section is nothing but hyperbole anyway and should probably be removed as nothing ore than political manuvering and a manufactured controversy. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The list of Ms. Bachmann's alma maters is deliberately misleading. I can understand listing all three schools, Winona, Oral Roberts, and WIlliam & Mary, but listing William & Mary as her Law School without mentioning that her J.D. came from the now defunct Oral Roberts is significant. On one hand, you have Oral Roberts Law School which ceased to exist the year of her graduation, whose properties were transferred to the Tier 4 Regent University College of Law, and on the other hand you have the College of WIlliam & Mary, a highly esteemed institution. The simplest fix would be to list the relevant degree received from each university after that particular school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.249.163 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.106.2.112, 17 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Bartender Roy Esposito once commented: "I'd do her in a heartbeat. The batshit crazy ones are always fun."

71.106.2.112 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide sources showing this is both true and notable. Algebraist 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is this locked again???? Ready to ad latest quote that first black president is turning US into a nation of slaves. This is everywhere else but Wicki. Slow response time helps no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.165.223 (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Dozen categorization

The relevance of the Dirty Dozen categorization was questioned, before the section in the Environment and Energy section of article was added. It is indeed relevant because it is a politically effective designation - only twelve members of Congress are tagged with the designation based on their assessed opposition to environmental concerns. The designation is a real designation, as noted by "The Hill", a reputable source for political news. I will remove the tag, since it was placed prematurely. Watchpup (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is reliably sourced now, but it wasn't at the time it was added. I also added a tag to the Think Progress reference, as it is not a news organization, but an advocacy group.--Drrll (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a suitable characterization for a category. It's up at CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 12#Category:Politicians:Dirty Dozen. As for including it here in the text, we've tended to remove the "scorecards" issued by various advocacy groups. This seems pretty much the same as one of those. If it got special attention in the media then it might be more noteworthy than the average scorecard.   Will Beback  talk  05:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect citation in "Social Issues" section

Text reads: "Bachmann supports both a federal and state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and any legal equivalents.[111] In support of a constitutional amendment she proposed to ban same-sex marriage,[111] Bachmann said that the gay community was specifically targeting children and that "our children... are the prize for this community."[112]"

Citation number 111 (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0006.2&session=ls84) links to a page from the Minnesota HoR containing the text of the proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Bachmann is not listed as an author of this bill, nor is she on record of having voted for or against it, according to this page. The text of the article is not supported by this citation. Either the proper citation should be found or this part of the article should be changed.

69.209.124.170 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Incandescent v. florescent lightbulbs

The following statement was put in the text under Incandescent lightbulbs section:

If a CFL (fluorescent bulb) breaks,the EPA recommends the room be evacuated and aired out for at least fifteen minutes and that all clothing or other articles found to be contaminated with mercury should be thrown away.

Although this is informative, it's off topic from the page, which is about Bachmann, not how to deal with a light bulb. Dinkytown 23:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If the preceeding paragraph is going to go into detail about how supposedly wrong she is about flourescent lightbulbs along with Julia Bovey's comment it is perfectly fine to include the EPA's statement. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I really don't think either of these has any serious bearing in a biography of a living person and the issue violates wp:undue. But if you are going to include one POV, you better include both. Rapier (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but figured it was easier to add than to remove. But if their is concensus the second paragraph should be removed completely. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If Bachmann quoted a reference to any EPA policy or statement, then the addition would be appropriate, but she never quoted them. The EPA statement is out of the blue, more of their own policy statement than anything that Bachmann said. It should be removed unless there is linkage. Dinkytown 04:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that mercury is highly toxic and should a CFB break in a home, a resident or child could get a very high dose of the poisonous metal, in comparison to the extremely low dose human being get from power plants. Bachman is correct. The addition of the power industry quote is selective and does not consider exposure risk and dosage and therefor should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.155.54 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - I could not find any statement by Bachmann quoting the EPA, but I did find a source with an article that did link Bachmann with the EPA. Since there is now linkage, I would considered this settled. Dinkytown (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Dysfunction related to GLBT.

The only references to this currently require a paid subscription. We really need a direct quote for this kind of statement to make sure she is not misquoted per her actual words. I submit it is a possible BLP violation as currently stated. Arzel (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be freely available. Here is the relevant excerpt from that article:

• In March, for example, she was on a radio show advocating a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. A caller challenged her to explain how he, a married heterosexual, would be harmed if his gay neighbors were allowed to marry. Bachmann replied that once a state legalizes gay marriage, "public schools would have to teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are normal, natural and that maybe children should try them." She has publicly referred to homosexuality as "sexual dysfunction," "sexual identity disorders," as "personal enslavement," that leads to "sexual anarchy."

I will restore the material unless there's anything else.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that it is a secondhand source. If "She has publically referred to....." then there should be a source that says what she said otherwise this claim has to be attributed to the author of the article. The other statements are actual quotes that she has made, but this is not quite the same. It is a pretty charged statement, I think we should have her actual quote. Arzel (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The words are in quotation marks indicating they are actual quotes. While I wouldn't use this webpage as a source, it appears to give the context.[20] Is there any evidence that Bachmann denied the assertion published by the largest newspaper in the largest city in her state? I'm going to go ahead and restore the well-sourced material. If we find a denial we can add that too.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Since that source is an attack page of Bachmann I question the context of her words. I would ask for additional eyes to look at this. Arzel (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the source we're actually using is the Star Tribune, which is used for many citations in the article.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, but the Star Tribune is not exactly known to be all that neutral in their treatment of Bachmann. Was this a news report or an op-ed? The context of the report says alot about how it is presented. Arzel (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

According to whom is the Star Tribune non-neutral? If they are not a reliable source then this article will be considerably shorter.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they were not a reliable source, but they certainly are not neutral when it comes to anything opinion related (which I suspect this was, since they apparently pharaphrased her and didn't quote her). And their reporting on Bachmann has been very negative. Not sure if I quite agree with your most recent edit. You left out the part where she said she wasn't "bashing" GLBT individuals. Again, I would like to have some more eyes look at this. Arzel (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the name of the paper to the assertion, so readers can judge for themselves.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone please post/quote where the source either paraphrased her or quoted her since there is no online-link to this? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the thread. I posted an excerpt from the source above, and I added a link to a page that purports to have a quote from the original radio interview.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw and read that. What I'm asking for is how the Star Tribune (the source) phrased it.TMCk (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand your question. The text in italics towards the top of this thread is from the Star Tribune article. If you like, I can provide a longer excerpt.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my focus was on the link you provided and I missed what you just pointed out. So my two three cents are: Keep the edit [your edit] and if Bachmann comments on this at some point let's add it too.TMCk (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

She apparently made this statement in 2004, so I doubt she will be making any new comments on it. I was unable to find anything on this other than anti-Bachmann sites, and it appears that only the Strib was the only source to even bring it up, which is another reason why I have some issues with this. Also, it appears it only gained marginal attention from the Strib in 2006 during the political season, and is now being brought up again as political fodder. I question if is can really be called one of her current political positions. Arzel (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If she's changed her positions we can say that too. This comment does not appear to contradict anything she's said elsewhere, and her early political career was based on writing and promoting an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriages.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if she made (or will make) comments that contradict her then statements we can update them accordingly. Till then we must assume that this is her (sourced) position.TMCk (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You Can Run But You Cannot Hide

It seems that giving a brief in-line description of why the organization is "controversial" better than simply describing them as such, which borders on WP:LABEL. It's necessary to give some level of context in the article itself, though a full description of the controversy is clearly out of scope. I'm not actually clear what WP policy or style guidelines say here, but it would surprise me if calling them "controversial" is preferred over a brief description of the nature of their controversy. Glaucus (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree in principle, though I'd prefer a slightly more nuanced description than even your improved second edit. But it's not like this is synthesis or anything like that; the connection to Bachmann and their views on execution of homosexuals are both right there together in the article you cited. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn’t matter for the sake of this article, the reference with Bachmann to the group is in 2006, the stuff that Glaucus is seeking to add is from 2011. There is nothing indicating that this was the groups outlook in 2006 so the information could be placed in an article about the group and its developing thought/message not in Bachmann's article.Wowaconia (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the references show continuing connections between Bachmann and the group from 2006-2010. The reference I added is from 2010, not 2011. Glaucus (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• The original article about her fundraising for the group says that its an "anti-drug Christian punk rock band" in that article the group is controversial for mixing public school outreach with Christianity which some view as a violation of the First Amendment. The article you wish to source states that the front-man is Bradlee Dean and "recent controversial statements by Dean — that Muslim countries calling for the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American Christians” — have drawn the ire of some both within and outside the party." You'll note that it says recent. So this was not the groups stated belief at the time Bachmann assisted and appeared with them. They were controversial at that time for their stance on the First Amendment, not on judging execution of homosexuals acceptable. Mention of the recent developments of their beliefs deserve to be placed in a wiki article about them, but to mention this in Bachmann's article doesn’t make any sense and could confuse the reader into believing that Bachmann endorses the same when there is no reliable source that claims that she does.Wowaconia (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Speech to Iowans for Tax Relief

This section appears too long for its relative prominence. I now receives over 500 words and mostly relies on single source. I suggest that it could be reduced by half or more, without losing the basic information.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the quotes & details don't seem encyclopedic. Midlakewinter (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversial statements

Rep. Michele Bachmann claimed that "the very founders who wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States." This is completely false. The founding fathers made slaves 3/5ths a person without any citizenship rights. The Founding Fathers passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 that allowed masters to capture run away slaves. I recommend a "Controversial statements" section be put in the article. Bachmann also claimed that everyone was treated equally when they came to America. The Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed only whites into the country! Blacks, Asians, Native Americans could not be citizens of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There are reliable sources reporting on controversies generated by these statements? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Source link: Bachmann, Matthews, Adams and slavery The link has a Chris Matthew's video segment on Michele Bachmann. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bachman on radio said she wanted Minnesotans "armed and dangerous" against Pres. Obama.

Here is the source link: Bachmann wants Minnesotans ‘armed and dangerous’ against Obama energy policy This has been already covered in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Founding fathers speech

Why was Rep. Michele Bachmann' founding father's speech deleted? Where was the speech covered in another section? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Iowa Speech section talks about it. No need to duplicate it, plus it is much more neutral incorporated into that section rather than a specific section which largely served to politically attack Bachmann. Arzel (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a section on 3/5 compromise at the Philadelphia convention with the Washington Post website source. I added this for neutrality. Can Rep. Michele Bachmann's speech go uncontested with historical facts? If not, the entry may be deleted. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed much of that because it reads like orignal research and synthesis of material. It is also beyond the scope of this article. Arzel (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's enough to say, as it did before, that the assertions have led to concerns. The whole speech section is too long. It wasn't that notable a speech, on the whole.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

At least there is mention that commentators had concern over the speech. The Naturalization Act of 1790, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Three-fifths compromise are historical events. Are there any non fringe sources that claim the Founding fathers did everything to stop slavery? That would be original research. Why does Wikipedia support the fringe argument that the Founding Fathers attempted to stop rather then protect slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to recheck the subject of this article; it is Michele Bachmann, not slavery in the United States or history of the United States. The speech is given more prominence than it is due already. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sidewalk Counseling

The citation for Bachmann as a sidewalk couselor is not only dead but also broken because it does not give enough detail for anyone to obtain a copy of the source to verify it. (was it a campaign flyer, newsletter, etc?) Also the language infers Bachmans motives. I will leave the sidewalk counselor language for now as it is not particularly contraversial but the POV assessment of motive will be removed as this is a bio and I could not find a good source elswhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously incorrect as to the cite. The comment about motivation (I'd call it activity, but whatever) is correct though, and dissuading people is not mentioned in the cited source. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tax Lawyer Career

The radio program quote regarding Bachmann's tax lawyer career seems to be not sequitter indicating it may be out of context. The inline reference is to a radio program but offers no information for means to obtain a copy to varify the source and the convenience link provided was for a biased article that makes no mention of Bachmanns legal carreer nor the radio interview. Since this is a bio I took the liberty to delete pending improved sources. Thank You 72.49.155.225 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The "I'm a tax lawyer" quote lacked context an coherence, but there is sufficient sourcing to say she worked forthe IRS as a tax attorney. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Charter School paragraph

The paragraph about her forming a charter school and what happened to it is from City Pages which is a well respected publication in Minnesota, the qoutes of a directly affected parent whose child attended the school are taken from there. Also Bachmann often speaks of starting a charter school when she discusses her views on education so arguing the info should be deleted out of hand doesnt make sense.Wowaconia (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked in the Proquest newspaper archive and found this paragraph:

• Opponents also have hinted strongly that the Republicans want to foist a Christian-based standard of education on Stillwater schools. One local DFL Party newsletter, which termed the Republican candidates' group "alarming," tied two of the candidates - Bachmann and [Barbara] Harper - to a 1993 effort to "exert a religious influence" on what was taught at New Heights Charter School. Bachmann wouldn't comment on the newsletter's claim, and Harper could not be reached for comment. [Bill] Dierberger said any notion of imposing religious values on the schools "has never even come up in our conversations. We're running to eliminate the profile."
  • Partisan twist for school elections GOP supporting some candidates in Stillwater and other districts; Norman Draper, Staff Writer. Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Oct 30, 1999. pg. 01.B

DFL=Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules do not require a source to be respected but rather reliable and more importantly to have a neutral point of view. A biased source may be noted as a lead to an unbiased source but a biased source should not be relied upon wholly nor should the source pov be carried over to the wikipedia article. Furthermore, the POV of others (the school parent) has no place in the article's text even if it is recorded by a reliable source.

Also, keep in mind this is a biography of a living person and is not an article about the charter school. If one wants to write about the charter school they may do so in a seperate article. Since this is a biographical article and since the improperly sourced content can be damaging, I am removing it before discussing it. However, instead of simply deleting it, I have endeavored to locate a more neutral source and have pasted information and references from that source which is an AP voter guide published by NPR. Thank You Dpky (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm halfway. I agree that the unverified allegations of one parent were given too much weight, but this is a biography, not a hagiography; there is sufficient sourcing to mention that a controversy existed. I added a comment to that effect, phrased to be NPOV. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. The problem I have with it is that the articles from Citipages are opinion articles peppered with unattributed remarks. The entire basis of claiming there was a contoversy, the details of it and Bachmann's role is based on the oppinion articles of one author in a publication that declares it is alternative, that is they are not reporting consensus. Furthermore it is important to pair this language down to Bachmann's difinitive involvement as this article is about her not the school. Please find unbiased sources. Until then I'll take a stab at a rewrite. Thank You. Dpky (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

@Fat&Happy, OK, I see you didn't accept the concession of the rewrite I offered and Undid without further discussion so that means you have no intention of finding a better source to indicate controversy regarding the school. Since the NPR voter guide mentions the school but not any contraversy, I'll take that as an unbiased(ahem) source that there was no noteworthy or memorable contraversy or at least your opinion driven source failed at his attempts to manufacture the image of controversy. I encourage you to do more investigation to find better sources before undoing. Even if there truly was controversy, I cannot verify what it was about because the source is a biased opinion that cites unidentifyable sources. I will revert to an earlier version without mention of contraversy because this is a bio of a living person. Thank You Dpky (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's look a little more closely at the content in the source articles. Anderson attributes his references to controversy surrounding the school to a parent named Denise Stephens who is recalling the matter to Anderson TWELVE YEARS LATER and Anderson emphasizes several times that this is all "according to Stephen's" meaning Anderson could not/did not verify these statements from Stephens. That, in light of Anderson's bias, makes this an unverifyable source in, my mind, for what actually occured. For more about these articles, see the Charter School section of this talk page. Dpky (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Med center lease plan

There are several issues with the paragraph regarding a Med center lease plan:

1. The first source is to a biased opinion article
2. The first source is to a publication that describes itself as "alternative" which naturally means it is not striving to write from a consensus point of view
3. The first source refers to a 1991 Pioneer Press article as its source but does not site enough information to actually locate the article. If someone is able to locate the Pioneer press article then maybe that would help substantiate the otherwise biased source.
4. The second source refers to a Dec 18, 1991 Minneapolis Star Tribune story by Pat Prince but no such article was found among results when searching the Tribunes archives for Pat Prince in December 1991. Thus it is not a verifiable source and must be deleted.

I will retain as much of the paragraph as possible and wait a little while for new sources to be added but will delete any the unvetifyable source and mark the other as broken. Thank You Dpky (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To your point #4, that is incorrect and there was no justification for removing the cite. Newspaper articles do not require a URL to be verifiable. I am restoring. Again.

As to the other points, there is no requirement that the sources themselves be totally unbiased or reflect consensus views; if that were the case we would have practically no content sourced to Fox News or MSNBC, among others. There is only a requirement that the Wikipedia article itself maintain a neutral point of view and the sources meet the requirements to be considered a reliable source. Specific questions on the can be raised at WP:RSN. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please understand, I'm not saying the source is bad because there is not an online link. I'm saying it is bad because it does not exist or at least is unverifiable because it does not exist among the publication's archives. It would be like someone citing page 201 of a book but when you go to read the book it only has 200 pages.

As for the bias of the source, I didn't mean to imply that a biased source could not be cited. What I am saying is that the information retained there must be reviewed with the bias in mind. In this example, the author of the source is trying to establish the image of a controversy 12 years after the fact. So, it would be important to find other sources to substantiate the biased article. In fact, I believe that the 2010 voter guide from NPR indicates that charges of controversy were unfounded as the guide mentions the charter school but does not mention any controversy. The biased source does mention a 1991 article. If that article could be tracked down then maybe it would provide a better source and the fact that the article was biased demands this extra investigative step. Come on, do you think the author of the article contacted those in attendance in 1991 or do you think he rewrote snippets of a 1991 article. I think the latter and since his mention of the article doesn't really identify the article in away that it could be looked up means this source is unverifiable and unreliable. I'll give some time for further investigation before completely deleting any mention of controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

For those following along at home, which is the biased source?   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The "biased" source is an article by G.R. Anderson, Jr. (who does not appear to be one of Bachmann's greatest fans) in City Pages, a Twin Cities "alternative newsweekly" published by the owners of The Village Voice.

• Anderson, G.R., Jr. (February 23, 2005). "Somebody Say Oh Lord!". City Pages. Archived from the original on March 4, 2005. Retrieved March 26, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The "unverifiable" source is a 1991 article by Pat Prince in the Star Tribune, which was added to the article on October 22, 2006, (i.e., in the middle of Bachmann's first Congressional campaign) and is not currently found in the newspaper's on-line archives:

• Prince, Pat (December 18, 1991), "Abortion issue clouds med center lease plan", Minneapolis Star Tribune

Note that the City Pages article is one of two (the other being:

• Anderson, G.R., Jr. (October 4, 2006). "The Chosen One". City Pages. Minneapolis.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))

under discussion in the Charter School paragraph above, which you (Will) have previously commented on. Until I noticed that, I was going to ask if you were going to volunteer as a WP:3O, but the previous participation might make you ineligible.

Fat&Happy (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As for "bias", it's tricky for us to make that determination on our own. "Partisanhip" is a bit easier to determine, but we still need to be careful about discounting sources due to our own opinions of their perspective.

The Star Tribune article is in the Proquest archive. I can post excerpts here or send the complete article to anyone who sends me an email.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice Summary, Fat & Happy Dpky (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I'll get a copy of the Pat Prince story and if it does exist then I'll leave the citation be. The med center references are in the City Pages "Oh Lord" article and it seems to reference back to an undated and untitled article in the Pioneer Press in 1991 or 1992. Anderson's bias doesn't seem to color this reference too much and so I accept Fat & Happy's earlier edit pending finding the Pioneer Press story. The rest of the issues discussed here are more applicable to the Charter School section of this talk page. Thank You Dpky (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I received the pertinent parts of the Pat Prince story so it does indeed exist however it's mention of Bachmann is limited to the quote from her and does not mention anything about any poor conduct at the med center meeting. 72.49.155.225 (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage "Ban"

In the state senate section: Same sex marriage is a little too general in this case as it includes private marriage ceremonies not invoolving the state. The proposed law would have denied official legal recognition of same sex marriages not actually ban them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose using the more neutral term "marriage amendment" in this case because the subject of the proposed law was to amend the state constitution to more specifically define the paramaters of marriages that may be granted legal recognition by the state and not a ban on gay marriages. The distinction is important as there actually were (until the US supreme court nocked them down) so called sodomy laws that actually did ban gay marriage and relations. Those are completely different from what this particular legislation proposed. Dpky (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So...

What WAS she looking at, anyway? Does anyone know? All I can find are dumb jokes. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

She was looking at the cameras from the Tea Party group that set up the response. CNN decided to use their own cameras instead of the Tea Party feed, but neglected to tell Bachman, so it is a CNN Fail. Arzel (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh so it was CNN's fault she looked stupid, gotcha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.17.115 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann comes out as birther-curious

• Bachmann comes out as birther-curious, salon.com, Thursday, Feb 17, 2011
• How can Michele Bachmann be president if she won't release her birth certificate?, salon.com, Thursday, Mar 17, 2011.--87.145.8.253 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish to add a Citation Needed tag to the article's assertion that Bachmann was born in Iowa. I read the policy, which states: "To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an uncited claim by inserting a Citation needed tag." I understand that Bachmann's backers will interpret this as harassment. But objectively speaking, her stated place of birth is an uncited claim. I am unable to add the tag because I'm not a registered user or frequent editor. But I don't think the lock on the page should be used to prevent the customary use of Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.236.139 (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Bachmann was born Michele Marie Amble in Waterloo, Iowa, 'into a family of Norwegian Lutheran Democrats'"appears to be properly sourced, so I see no basis for a {{Citation needed}} tag. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect year of marriage

I notice that the page states Michele Bachmann was married in 1981 and it appears this fact is not cited. I found that U.S. News and World Reports, the New York Times, and Minnesota Monthly all state that her marriage occurred in 1978. Source links: [21], [22], [23].

Note: Because Michele Bachmann is a client of my employer (see my user page), per WP:COI, I will not make the change myself. Additionally, this is my first Talk page posting, so I welcome the community's advice for improving future edit suggestions and discussion posts. CS Katie (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)CS_Katie

 Done. The 1981 seems to have been added about a week ago; it may have been based on a rather loose interpretation of the statement on her congressional website biography that they have been married "for more than thirty years". Thanks. (BTW, I don't think changing a minor fact based on three reliable sources (though I only used one) would be seen as a COI violation, but I guess your caution is a good idea overall.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit and the COI advice. I will air continue to air on the side of caution, accompanying any edits or suggestions with discussion and disclosure. CS Katie (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)