Jump to content

Talk:Michele Bachmann/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Excuse Me

Um, Pat Buchanan's page says he is a politician, and Michele Bachmann's doesn't? That's nonsense if I ever saw it. Bachmann is a career politician! Please, someone slap the word "politician" in the introductory sentence. Thanks. --78 Personal Appeals/Sarbanes-Oxley (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to adding the word "politician" to her profile, but to refer to a 55 year-old that has been in office for 11 years (only 5 years in her current office) as a "career politician" is a bit extreme. She was a student and academic for 15 years, an attorney with the IRS for 5 years, and a stay-at-home-mom for another 8 years after that. Take a deep breath, remember WP:NPOV, and try to realize that Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox. SeanNovack (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Politician is a mildly pejorative and uninformative term. Articles should and usually do do better than that. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a categorization pro, but I believe Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Minnesota is a subcat of Category:Politicians no? That negates the need for Category:Politicians, right?
re "Politician is a mildly pejorative and uninformative term" - Perjorative? I think a few folks out there look on politicking as a respectable occupation. I don't see how it's uninformative.
Without debating the 'respectable profession" statement, I think that most would agree that "politician" it is a mild pejorative, a,d "career politician" is a flat out pejorative. ne need look no farther that the OP of this section to see that. And it's a matter of choice of words, not the underlying respectability of the profession. On the last question, what info does the word add to the article? North8000 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
No question that 'career politician' is very much a pejorative, but saying someone is simply a "politician" is merely a statement of fact. Yes, the statement "he is a politician" could be delivered in a context where it is clearly intended to be a pejorative, but that doesn't mean the word is inherently pejorative. The main issue with 'politician' is that it is inexact. It may be the easiest thing to say, however, of someone who has held a host of different political positions of near-comparable stature. --Saforrest (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
re "No question .....doesn't mean the word is inherently pejorative" - Exactly.
re "what info does the word add to the article" - Categorization isn't really about "adding information" per se, as much as it's there to help users find things. For instance, if I wanted a complete list of all politicians on WP I might go to Category:Politicians. Don't you think it would be appropriate for me to find Bachmann there?
Nobody has really addressed my subcat point yet.... NickCT (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
@Novack: I think we may disagree on what an NPOV is. If referring to a pundit who never held elected office as a politician while referring to a person who held office for over 11 years as a "representative" is neutral, then I must be high as a kite. --78 Personal Appeals/Sarbanes-Oxley (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I ever mentioned the word "Representative", though that is her title as a US Congresswoman. Also, I said at the beginning of my statement that I had no issue with adding the word "politician" to her description. My concern is the ease at which people of both sides dismiss the other because they disagree with them. In Michelle Bachmann's 37 years of adult life, she has held office for 11. Hardly a "career politician", not even 30%. Your reasoning ("Bachmann is a career politician!") was false, and I pointed it out. That's all. SeanNovack (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think that its pretty clear to not say "career politician". Beyond that, what exactly is the question? North8000 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is a "work ethnic"?

Could someone please fix the typo in the "Autobiography" section? The term is "work ethic", not "work ethnic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.133.228 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Bachmann Degree

Marcus Bachmann, despite what his personal website says, does not have a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology. You cannot reference a persons personal website as a citation. The University that granted his Ph.D. did not then or ever have a Ph.D. program in clinical psych. They now have a Doctor of Psychology degree (which is not a Ph.D., but is a doctorate), but have only had for a few years. The university, when asked about his degree stated that he does have a Ph.D. in Psychology and it has a "concentration in clinical psychology". This is important because that means that is almost every state he is not allowed to practice, Minnesota is one of the few where he is. All in all, there is a very big difference between a Ph.D. (or Psy.D.) in Clinical Psychology and every other doctorate degree in Psychology and any Ph.D. in Psychology, hospital or university would agree. Wikipedia should not further this lie and I believe the sentence should read "Bachmann and her husband own a Christian counseling practice named Bachmann & Associates,[40][41] which is run by her husband, who has a PhD in psychology, with a concentration in clinical psychology" from Union Graduate School." Which is something that I think is WAY more than fair as it still, in my opinion, over represents his credentials. I have made this change before, with a proper citation, but it gets changed back. I will leave this talk section up for a few days to see if there is opposition. Thevandaley (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Off Topic: Request for Comment on Mitt Romney

I figure since Bachmann has ended her presidential campaign that wiki editors that have followed the Bachmann article can be good neutral voices on the discussion page of the Mitt Romney article, Mitt Romney was technically registered as a Democrat for a brief time. Any feedback would be appreciated! K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dual citizenship in Switzerland

Michelle Bachmann and her husband were granted dual citizenship in Switzerland this year. This should be added to the article, yes? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76072.html -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"and partake in local elections". That's not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.208.168 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This information should absolutely be in her biography. One can only surmise on the reasons why, but this article can perhaps shed light on the subject: http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1175497--go-away-american-millionaires-foreign-banks-turn-away-the-rich-as-tax-evasion-law-looms?bn=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.71.42 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

    • I feel like we're taking this rather too far. She does not in fact reside in Switzerland and apparently has no intention of doing so. I'm aware that we use nationality categories when people change citizenship, but using them in cases of dual citizenship when the individual has no notable presence in the second country seems ridiculous. Mention in the article, certainly, Category:People with acquired Swiss citizenship, sure, but "Swiss activists/Christians/people of Norwegian descent/people of American descent/politicians/lawyers" is way overkill. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I removed the claim that "the Bachmanns" are citizens of Wigoltingen, because the cited source [2] says that "Andrea von Arx-Koprio from Thurgau’s civil status department confirmed Marcus Bachmann was indeed a citizen of Wigoltingen, in canton Thurgau" (emphasis added). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to take a wait-and-see approach on this. It's unclear whether this is even an actual biographical issue (maybe a piece of trivia about Marcus, but not her). More likely, it's just this week's political chatter, to be forgotten in a few months. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This Article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18011296) states she gave up her Swiss passport, but does not state she gave up her citizenship. I would think it would be appropriate to list Switzerland along United States as one of her citizenships in the info-box. Wingtipvortex (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann's Immigration Policy Websites: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shampa R (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Michele_Bachmann_Immigration.htm

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/13/317735/michele-bachmann-white-immigration/?mobile=nc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/michele-bachmann-border-fence-immigration-perry_n_1012833.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shampa R (talk • Shampa R (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)contribs) 17:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary: The article I am working on is about Michele Bachmann’s views on immigration policy. These views had been expressed by her during her bid to be the Republican nominee for the Presidency of the US. While she is opposed to the DREAM ACT, which is a conditional permanent residency for undocumented immigrants, she favors immigration for highly skilled people like chemists, doctors, and engineers, to name a few. One of her campaign promises had been to protect the US from illegal immigration by building a fence along the Mexican border.

Plan: Since I felt that the immigration section was too short and did not reflect her views completely, my plan is to add necessary information to make it more comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shampa R (talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

Under 2012 congressional campaign:

184.78.81.245 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: It's not an article, just a section with less information. It would be better to say 'See also' instead of 'Main article'. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it would be better if this article followed the format of the articles for every other member of Congress. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, the main campaign coverage belongs in the campaign article with a line or two, in summary style, in the candidate's article. Hence, 'Main'. If you have a problem with her campaign contributions, you can move them to the campaign article. Most people rely on the OpenSecrets link rather than month-by-month descriptions in the articles. Other than that, I don't understand 'less information'. Is this why her article is protected? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

Fix 2 broken links in External links, CongLinks template: votesmart = 54675 | washpo = gIQALIcw9O 184.78.81.245 (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done: benign and uncontroversial. Thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2012

Bachmann's husband did not receive a Ph.D. He received a Psy.D., which is a much less rigorous academic course of study for a doctorate than is a Ph.D. course of study. The university he attended does not offer a Ph.D! 50.131.0.41 (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? The NYT source in the article has the following.

In 1995, he received a doctorate in clinical psychology from what was then the Union Institute in Ohio (now known as Union Institute and University), which employs what Nicole Hamilton, a spokeswoman, described as “a hybrid model of face-to-face residencies and distance learning.” While Union currently offers a doctor of psychology degree, Ms. Hamilton said Dr. Bachmann’s degree is doctor of philosophy, or Ph.D., with “a concentration in clinical psychology.”

Arzel (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


"And where I'm from, momma gets a what-what. You know I represent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.246.45 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


Bachman supports and encourages teaching creationism and intelligent design, this article is misleading

This is pure folly:

"According to an article in the Stillwater Gazette, a local newspaper in Minnesota, Bachmann supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes."

First of all, that sentence is weasly, or misleading as hell, take your pick. It's written as if possibly someone at this tiny little newspaper is making things up about Bachman. Now google "Michele Bachman teaching intelligent design" and you'll get hundreds of news articles that document Bachman's fringe and weird fascination with teaching children creationism in public school. Her love affair with wanting to see our children's science class turned into sunday school is well documented, and not just by small town newspapers in her home state. Secondly, the cite given is broken. Using Wikipedia to whitewash Bachman's attempt to circumvent the Constitution by encouraging creationism be taught in public school does not look encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.105.90 (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

read this search result and then read the sentence I quoted from the article above https://www.google.com/search?q=michele+bachman+teaching+intelligent+design&aq=f&oq=michele+&aqs=chrome.2.57j61j59l2j5j60.3722&sugexp=chrome,mod=10&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.105.90 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"According to the Star Tribune..."

Lots of weasle action in this article. You write "according to Star Tribune" as a way of distancing Bachman from her lunatic views, as if we should consider the source of this information. Very crafty of you, Bachman supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.105.90 (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

this article

I'm going to be straight with you:

This article is too long. I suspect that most readers of this article have the same purpose that I did. I came here to find out what all the fuss is about Michele Bachmann. She is apparently one of the most controversial politicians around. See [3] and [4]. So I decided I should come to my favorite place to find quick and easy info on the web - wikipeda. This article is ridiculously long and places a lot of weight (too much, perhaps?) on some tedious topics, (eg outlining every single event during each congressional term). Most people are here for the controversy part. So can you please at least direct me to the section that talks about the controversy? I'm not saying you have to make controversy the highlight of the article (in fact, please don't do this); I'm just asking that it be made clear where one can find the controversy section. Thanks Charles35 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Article split

I suggest that a portion of this article be split into its own, namely her House tenure into House career of Michele Bachmann, similar to that of John McCain's. There is so much information of her, from her early life to her presidential run and future speculation, it would be irresponsible to attempt to keep it all in one article. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 19:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. It looks like nearly half this article's content is within the U.S. House of Representatives section. That and the overall length of this article make it a good candidate for WP:SUMMARY. It's been a month and I don't see any objections, so I'd say let's do it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It's way too long right now. It also needs a controversy section. Michele Bachmann is a very controversial politician, but this article addresses none of those controversies. Remember the purpose of the article and the audience it is catering too. Many people come here to find information about things like that and I suspect many readers (including myself) come here solely to educate themselves on what the source of all this controversy is. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your second point, MRL. We generally try to encourage editors to include those controversial bits (and their counterpoints) where appropriate throughout the article (as this article currently does, to varying degrees of success), rather than putting them all into a controversy section which often tends to become a WP:COATRACK section of "look what a lunatic this person is" material rather than neutral, well-written, well-referenced material. Please see WP:CSECTION for further rationale regarding why criticism sections are usually a bad idea. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't find any criticism/controversy at all anywhere in the article. I don't necessarily disagree with you that having a section dedicated to controversy is a bad thing, but if we don't have one, we should at least make it clear in the sections names or the lede what the controversy is and where it is located in the article. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There is content throughout the article that addresses many of the controversies surrounding her, but readers will just have to look at relevant sections to find those. That is actually the mark of a well-written article, whereas a more poorly written article includes these in a more obvious (and usually less neutral way). As the article currently reads, if, for instance, you heard that she called for an investigation of Barack Obama and Congress to root out anti-American views, you'll just have to read the Criticisms of Barack Obama section. I'll agree that the call for a media exposé of supposed anti-American views in Congress gets lost in the wash there, but perhaps we could adjust the headings a little. Still, the headings themselves, like the content under them, should remain neutral. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 19:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Simply reporting a controversy does not violate neutrality. I think it wouldn't hurt to have a sentence in the lede saying "Michele Bachmann has been the subject of controversy surrounding x, y, and z." That way, I could go look at the sections that are relevant to x, y, and z. But when I, as a reader, came to this article to find info about all of this Bachmann controversy, I had no idea where to start. This is because I didn't know what the controversy had to do with. It should be clear in the lede in my opinion. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
She is a rather controversial figure (one big reason why this article is so long). I could support making a bare mention of some of the most notable controversies, as long as we leave it up to the relevant sections to give readers the information from which to draw their conclusions. That is to say, try not to infer anything other than that a controversy over x, y or z existed. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 19:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I would agree to that. It's important not to turn this into a WP:COATRACK. If you tell readers where the controversy is, then they can refer themselves to the relevant sections and find more info for themselves. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


In addition to Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, we also have United States Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but these are both Senate articles and I do not see any articles titled House career of..., House of Representatives career of... or Congressional career of..., so my only question is how best to name the branch article. I think Congressional career of... may be the best way to go, but I'd like to hear from a few other editors before boldly splitting. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 19:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Look I'm all for information but the history of this page shows that branch articles are a bad idea. Several have been created about her history in Minnesota and in the MN state government, and they all wind up being voted down after awhile and called for merging back at best. Moving information off this page is a near guarantee that it will be deleted. There seems to be many editors who feel that if an article could not fit on the back of a cereal box it has to much information regardless of the worthiness and reliability of the sources. Its just a fact about Wikipedia and fighting that tendency is pointless. Anything you move off this page is likely to be deleted when the votes call for the branch page to merged back.Wowaconia (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
In addition her House Career is the core of her notability so I think the likliness of a branch page survivng a merge vote is next to nil.--Wowaconia (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought the core of her notability was her undying propensity for making lunatic statements in the media. Anyway, I thought the split was a good idea because it would reduce this article's length by about 1/3, and certainly her career as a member of Congress passes WP:NOTABILITY on its own merits. And one of the most frequent complaints on this talk page and on the article's user feedback feature is that the article is too long. I don't really care one way or the other, so if there's no consensus to split, I will be happy to abide. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Another big problem with biographical article split-outs is that nobody reads the subarticles. Look at the McCain example that someone raised above: last month John McCain got 156,916 page views while Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present got only 486. A year earlier the figures were 201,205 versus 317. It extends to other people as well. Last month Barack Obama 707,418 views, United States Senate career of Barack Obama 3,727 views. Sarah Palin 94,976 views, Governorship of Sarah Palin 776 views. I've looked at these numbers for several years and they hold true for all biographical subjects and their subarticles - the ratios are always 100:1 or worse. What that means is that when you move material out of the main biography article, you are guaranteeing that 99% of readers will never see it. That's pretty close to just deleting the material outright. And for a controversial subject like Bachmann, deciding what to effectively delete would not be easy. Moreover, I don't see the harm in a 10,000 word article. There is no requirement that the viewers read the whole article top to bottom in one sitting. They can read part one time and come back another time. They can read some sections completely while skimming others they are less interested in, and so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I'm not a big fan of republicans here but this article is obviously biased in the anti-republican favor. There is very, very little in this article that expresses any nonpartisan actions by M.B. It seems to be a shrine to her partisanship. Can anyone comment in an unbiased banner? Asking for opinion here. There are tons of talk subjects here about the article being too long, and it seems to be just glorifying/demeaning (whichever you prefer) her partisanship and right-learning tenure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.75.173 (talk)

WP:NPOV does not say we should whitewash the article of any facts or statements which may be perceived as favorable or unfavorable to the subject, only that we Wikipedia editors should not assert our own judgment or advance a position that is not supported by the preponderance of reliable sources. Reliable sources agree that Michele Bachmann is a right-wing politician and a Tea Party favorite, so we have no obligation to try to "balance" the article by attempting to demonstrate her in a more liberal (or non-partisan) light. To attempt to paint her as a non-partisan (or less partisan) member of Congress would require injecting a lot of bias in favor of artificial neutrality. Also, since she consistently makes statements that a preponderance of neutral, reliable sources agree are not based in fact, this article naturally reflects some areas where her stated positions are at odds with neutral facts. Again, this is because a neutral point of view simply shows how non-neutral her point of view is. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is Bobby Thompson?

How can an article on Michele Bachmann pretend to be anywhere near complete without discussing her direct links to Bobby Thompson and the campaign funding scandal? Instead, according to Wikipedia, she just "retired" one day, out of the blue, no reason given. This is contrary to facts that can easily be googled in seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrab1 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources, you are welcome to add content to the article. If you are unable to edit due to article protection, please make a specific edit request and I will be happy to help you (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship

Within two days of the first reports of Bachmann's dual citizenship, she announced that she had written to the Swiss consulate to have her Swiss citizenship withdrawn While Wiki does not allow primary research, let me say the following, which doubtless can be verified on the Swiss Government Web site: the spouse of a Swiss citizen who has been married the requisite number of years is entitled to apply for "facilitated naturalisation" through the relevant Swiss consular office or (if resident in Switzerland) the commune's Office of Population. Grant of citizenship is dependent upon having "close contacts" with Switzerland, having been there occasionally (3 times in the past 10 years is what they say now) and speaking a Swiss language (German (or Swiss-German), French, Italian Romansch). The process takes a year or two. Renunciation is possible but isn't normally accomplished by a simple letter to the consul. Given the inaccuracy of other statements by Bachmann I would want to further evidence beyond her simple statement. Any Swiss consulate or consular section would have access to the directory of citizens. (Unlike the USA, Switzerland knows who all its citizens are, with the possible exception of minor children who have not (yet) been registered. If not registered by age 22, living abroad and having a second nationality, they will lose their Swiss citizenship at that age). All of this information is found online. http://www.admin.ch/index.html?lang=en& Andygx (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Early life, education, and early career

As the Daily Kos has pointed out, and the William and Mary College of Law Web site states, that law faculty only offers the LL.M. (in effect as a qualifying degree so they can take the Bar exam in certain states that allow it) to graduates of foreign law schools. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/25/938752/-Michele-Bachmann-Lying-about-Her-Law-Degree And very few (notably University of Miami (FL) and NYU (NY) offer an LL.M in tax. Given that every US university (and many foreign ones too) have a desk where anybody can telephone to confirm whether they did or didn't grant a particular degree to somebody and in what year, I'm appalled how few employment offices, journalists, bloggers and Wiki article writers bother to do that. (757) 221-3800 (William and Mary) (I note that the law school she graduated from, while accredited since 1971, was "ailing" and was shut down in 1986. An LL.M. would serve to "validate" the educational credentials of a graduate of a bad law school. But there's no evidence that Michele has the LL.M. she claimed.) Andygx (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is a hatchet job

This article is a hatchet job. Read Nancy Pelosi's Wiki article if you do not believe what I am writing. And as a professional writer, I know what I am writing about here.

To give you one example, Nancy Pelosi's husband is briefly mentioned in her Wiki article. You would think that the Michele Bachmann's Wiki article was about her husband instead though. This interjection of him into the article is done because it is easy to hatchet job him for holding a view on homosexuality which is clinically sound based on actual real psychology; real psychology that is until politics intruded and rewrote sound psychology to fit a gay right's agenda as opposed to science. So how is it easy then to hatchet job him on this now? Because when you rewrite truth you can get all kinds of "experts" to now say what a nut he is.

The rest of the article on Wiki is in the same vein. For instance it is implied that because she disagree's with the EPA and wants to close it, she is a hypocrite if she helps a constituent receive aid from that agency. Well, guess what? It is her job to help the constituent get aid whether she opposed the agency or not, period.

To use the logic of the article to elaborate then, suppose I oppose a freshwater system because I say the current one is still fine, and the new system is built anyway. Using the logic again and again demonstrated in this article, I would never be able to drink water again unless I had it shipped in. But I didn't oppose water. I opposed a new freshwater system and now the old one is torn out. See the point.

To elaborate again using example, Suppose I am against student loans. If I oppose student loans, I still have to have one if I go to college though. Why? Because student loans were not replaced by a better system which means college is 5 times more expensive than it should be because it is the flood of money from loans and aid that drives up the cost of college. If you get rid of A to enact B and then won't replace B with C when C is better, I can't use A or B because they don't exist. I can't have the old system where the free market made college affordable and I can't have the new system which would make it affordable so I have to have the system as is now which is geared towards colleges making money, not student education.

To close, this article in Wiki on Congresswoman Bachmann is filled with these kinds of false logic arguments, including abbreviated simplistic summaries on her positions or the use of her opponents false characterizations of her "positions" as what her positions are that makes the article useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete2060 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there an edit request in there somewhere? All I see is "as a professional writer, I know what I am writing about here," followed by a nearly incoherent string of poorly written analogies which belie a professional writing career. Sorry, but the sophomoric grammar on display here casts serious doubt upon your ipse dixit assertion of authority. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is a misplaced apostrophe in the second paragraph of the 'professional writer's comment unless he is talking about the 'gay right' (a whole different kettle of fish). And I have been unable to find a reference to a verb 'to hatchet job'. Cannonmc (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for edit

Can someone add the category Critics of islam to her. She has made several anti-Muslim comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.211.251 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

opensecrets.org

While opensecrets.org is reliable, it is a WP:PRIMARY source as opposed to WP:SECONDARY. Facts which appear in primary sources are not necessarily notable. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Opensecrets is the only source for discussion of campaign finances at Michele_Bachmann#2008_congressional_campaign and Michele_Bachmann#2010_congressional_campaign. Thundermaker (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

Add Ms Bachmann's last day in office as December 12, 2014. ChristopherSollars (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

This is the only page on a politician that does not have a section or a page dedicated to controversies. They are addressed throughout the page but in a way that seems to demise or dismiss them. To me it suggests regular editing by supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CFC0:9:B179:4FC7:69A2:82C0 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The existence of a "controversy" section in an article is not a good thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That also says "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."

Bachmann gets criticized a lot so it may be warranted here. Popish Plot (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Add a section discussing her anti-jewish remarks Jsherm12261990 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michele Bachmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive shows error message "417 Rate limit exceeded for bots". Thundermaker (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Michele Bachmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

These new links look good. Thundermaker (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Michele Bachmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

7 looks like a news home page, not a specific article.
8 is an archive of an error.
The rest are OK. Thundermaker (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Michele Bachmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Slavery / mixing up New Hampshire and Massachusetts

I came here after watching a couple of YouTube videos, and I thought Wikipedia might have a list of some of the more glaring factual errors Ms. Bachman has made. E.g., she gave a speech where she said the founding fathers had worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery, and in later interviews refused to admit she was wrong. She either ducked the question or pretended that John Quincy Adams was one of the founding fathers. There was also a speech she gave in New Hampshire where she confused its history with Massachusetts's. In a later interview she laughed it off by saying she shouldn't have used a TelePrompTer acquired from Obama. I think people might be interested in seeing things like this included in her Wikipedia entry. Minicarmen (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Were they covered in reliable sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michele Bachmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Michele Bachmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Husband should be identified correctly in first mention

Marcus Bachmann's full name should be used on his first mention within the body of the article. As it is now, he is simply named as "Marcus" at his first mention. This is conversational, not as it Should be in a unbiased article/entry. 73.86.252.195 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead should say she is known for her incendiary rhetoric

It is one of the reasons why she is notable. By failing to clarify this to readers, they are misled as to what kind of politician she is. It's informative for readers to distinguish Bachmann from, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans on September 28 inserted with edit summary = "Education policy" several statements including the following in the lead: "A controversial figure, Bachmann is known for her incendiary rhetoric, often loaded with wild exaggerations and falsehoods." StAnselm on December 2 edited with edit summary = "moved and attributed recent addition to the lead - I don't think it belongs here, and it relies on a single source (despite the other sources cited". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was an opinion that needed attribution. And the lead is meant to summarize what is in the article: it's not a place to insert random quotes. StAnselm (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: "Incendiary rhetoric" in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus not to include these particular quotes in the lead (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


Should the lead state that Bachmann is known for her (i) "incendiary rhetoric" which is (ii) often loaded with "wild exaggerations and falsehoods"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

After the third paragraph ("...Bachmann was elected to another term in the House in 2012, before announcing her retirement before the 2014 election.") insert:

"Since January 1, 2021 she has been Dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University."

source: https://www.regent.edu/news/regent-university-names-michele-bachmann-as-dean-of-the-robertson-school-of-government/ 65.216.233.162 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

Drazenmedina (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

I would like to request an addition to Michele Bachmann's Wikipedia Page concerning her "Personal Life" section.

The additional sentence can be made to the "Religion" sub-section:

"According to taxes submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Since 2018, Bachmann has served both as Director and Chairman of the 'Family Research Council' an evangelical organization with anti-LGBT and anti-abortion campaigns designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)."

Link: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521792772

Her name can be found on "Key Employees and Officers" from 2018-2020. Sincerelyswept (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added that Bachmann has worked for FRC. Did not add comment about SPLC's classification as that may be controversial, and is possibly WP:UNDUE. You may start a discussion to get consensus to expand this comment if you like, though any interested reader can find that information on FRC's main article. Also did not include the "Since 2018" text as FRC stopped filing 990's in 2020, so it is unclear if she has continued her role in the organization. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michele_Bachmann/Archive_5&oldid=1168613799"