Talk:Michele Bachmann/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Clearly NPOV, needs fixing regarding her political stances Quantumstream 23:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


I concurr with quantumstream. Still needs fixing.

Like what stance? They are all pretty well established, even if some of them still need specific references.

Her political stances are established albeit extreme. ~~

This article may seem bias, but if you were to read any and all articles regarding her stance and what she actually does/has done, it's pretty accurate.

LRT claims

Her LRT claims are common knowledge, because she used to go on talk radio constantly and talk it up. Her exact quotes are hidden behind pay newspaper articles at this point, except for the referenced paraphrasing. Why are you people so afraid of her stated opinions on light rail?

As far as the POV nonsense

  • it is a matter of record, not POV, that LRT has been successful in the Twin Cities.
  • it is a matter of relevant fact that Bachmann is raising most her money outside the 6th district

Again, why is there an effort to suppress this factual information?

The reference to the Daily Planet article is not a reliable source. The author is an editor on dumpbachmann, and the publication itself is suspect as a source (it bills itself as more of a community forum than a newspaper).
"Successful" is subjective in this case. Considered successful by whom? Are you saying that it's a universally agreed-upon fact that the light rail line is a success? Such a statement requires a source.
As for Bachmann's stance on LRT, we need a reliable source on this. I searched and could find no quote on LRT from Bachmann. But if you can find a quote from her or an article about her LRT stance, then please reference it. For now, I'm removing it because it is unsupported. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant; all that matters is whether it's verifiable from reliable sources. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

a) The source is reliable. You just don't like the author. b) LRT is universally considered successful in the Twin Cities. If it is not, it should be easy for you to cite a counter example. It would be impossible to prove universality.

a) It is not reliable. The author is an active editor on the dumpbachmann blog, and it's basically an opinion piece he wrote and published in an online newspaper that describes itself as "an experiment in participatory journalism". Not exactly the New York Times here. And my past disputes with this author are irrelevant to the question of reliability of the source - and this author is unquestionably a staunch political opponent of Bachmann. We wouldn't reference Karl Rove in an article about Hillary Clinton, and we shouldn't reference this dumpbachmann contributor in an article about Bachmann.
b) "Successful" is an inherently subjective and ambiguous term. What are the criteria for success? Who considers it a success? By what standard? I'm not disputing that you and many others in Minneapolis consider it a success, but that doesn't make it an objective, verifiable truth. It's a POV, plain and simple.
I'm not going to revert, because I don't want to get into a war here. But I stand by my edits. A Transportation Enthusiast 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at two areas of debate at the moment:

  1. Whether the success of Twin-Cities light rail should be in the article
  2. Whether PRT is unproven or experimental

On case 1, Twin-Cities light rail may or may not be successful, but it is certainly not obvious or a U.S. senator would not be saying it is unsuccessful. So a citation is needed, from an independent source. We can have points of view (POVs), but if they are disputed, a reputable source must be found. The onus is on the person wanting to add the POV to find a reliable source. For this reason I have taken out this word, though a {{Fact}} tag could be used instead, in which case if a cite is not found, the word will probably be removed anyway. A source would also clarify what success actually means in this case too - this is not obvious to a new reader of the article. Stephen B Streater 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On case 2, PRT is commercially unproven as the in-practice costs and usage figures are not known, but experiments have shown it is technically possible. Several systems are being made commercially, and when these are up and running, both these terms (unproven and experimental) will need review. Stephen B Streater 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


1. No US Senator or anyone else is claiming it is not successful. The success is not disputed. Her opposition and criticisms were prior to the advent of light rail.

The onus is on you to find a cite as it is a subjective view. Wikipedia prefers verifiability to truth. Stephen B Streater 13:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've re-worded the paragraph so that it is more clear that she preferred PRT to LRT prior to construction; the previous version did not make this clear. I've also retained the "success" line now that we have a reliable source, and removed the reference to the op-ed piece written by a political foe. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - this section looks much better supported now. Stephen B Streater 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PRT

I think it is relevant to her as a politician that she is pushing something that is highly speculative in its viability. I honestly don't know enough to personally have a position on PRT, but I do question the judgment of someone who would push it as an alternative to LRT for specifically the kind of problem the Twin Cities were trying to solve.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xinconnu (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 September 2006.

The point is, you are making a judgement on PRT and extrapolating it out to a judgement on Bachmann. I agree with Captainktainer on this: let the user make the judgement. ATren 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not the point. PRT is objectively unproven. I am making no judgments whatsoever on PRT itself. It is unproven. And the fact that she would pursue an unproven technology is relevant, but in itself is neither positive nor negative. Xinconnu 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I could go either way on this. I just feel that by including the fact that it is commercially unproven (certainly not technologically unproven - much research and several fully-functioning prototypes have demonstrated technological feasibility), it sounds like we're trying to make a point rather than state a point. She supports PRT over LRT, that's her position - to say more sounds like campaigning to me. Let the reader decide. ATren 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that her judgement is impaired. In fact, I place her squarely on the "a few bats short" segment of the belfry metric. She doesn't deserve to be in a position of power for a whole host of reasons. Nevertheless, this isn't an article about PRT. It's an article about Michelle Bachmann. Wikipedians, on the whole, are smart, or at least we should assume they are. Assuming that PRT is truly a whacko idea, reading the PRT article will let them figure it out for themselves. In the meantime, we don't need to comment on its impracticality. What could really use work is the PRT article. It is painfully pro-PRT, blatantly violating NPOV standards. Captainktainer * Talk 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Painfully pro-PRT? Nonsense. That article was battled over for 6 months until a general consensus was reached. User:JzG was very much a skeptical force in that debate, as was User:Stephen B Streater, and they seem OK with the article now. There's no basis for your pro-PRT assertion.
Captainktainer is referring to the article on PRT
Yes, I know, that's what I was referring to too. Take a look at the PRT history and you'll see how familiar I am with that article. :-) ATren 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are otherwise reasonable people so rabidly against reporting details about this technology? The article states facts that are scientifically indisputable and well supported in reliable sources (books, journals, even prototypes). The article also clearly (and repeatedly) states the concerns about commercial application. What's the problem? You'd think we were talking about intelligent design here, not a thoroughly-developed, well-understood, scientifically sound transportation concept. ATren 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Statement: "Some of Bachmann's local critics charge that she could be more accurately described as a Christian fundamentalist political candidate."

To the person or persons who keep removing or changing the following sentence from Senator Bachmann’s Wikipedia entry: “Some of Bachmann's local critics charge that she could be more accurately described as a Christian fundamentalist political candidate.”

As of today, September 15th, 2006, you have removed or amended this statement several times. Whenever you removed it entirely from the article, I replaced it.

I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise statement, but the statement you have substituted is actually less accurate than the original. Local critics of Bachmann have not charged “that she is a candidate more aligned with Christian fundamentalist ideology.” Local critics have indeed charged that she is a “Christian fundamentalist” politician—a politician pursuing a Christian fundamentalist agenda.

For the definition of Christian fundamentalist, see the Wikipedia entry on that topic and note the section of the entry entitled “Christian Right (USA)”. (It happens that this entry on Christian fundamentalism references Dr. James Dobson’s Family Research Council. Senator Bachmann is acquainted with Dr. Dobson and until recently a photograph of the Senator with Dr. Dobson was posted on her website. The Senator notes that Focus on the Family, Dobson’s popular radio broadcast organization, provided her with the materials for her public presentation on “The Effects of Gay Marriage On Education.”)

This charge--that she is actually a Christian fundamentalist politician--is so well known to people following Bachmann’s career in Stillwater that I did not feel that it needed citation. The links between Senator Bachmann and Christian fundamentalist political movement are well documented in the Wiki entry. Nevertheless, when you began removing the statement, I added citations to show that the original statement is true. The citations provided show that local critics have indeed claimed that Senator Bachmann is a Christian fundamentalist politic candidate and politician.

If you present convincing evidence for the following proposition: “Local critics have NOT charged that Senator Bachmann is not a Christian fundamentalist politician”-- I will agree to remove or change the statement. Until such evidence is presented here on the Talk page, I will keep putting the original statement back in the entry, where it belongs. Please do not “scrub” this entry to remove or amend this statement because you disagree with it. The original statement is accurate and a fair representation of what some local critics claim about Bachmann; the underlying facts are documented and sourced.

Wait, I thought you liberal Christ-haters were telling us that President Bush was just USING Christians to get votes. Now you're insisting...fighting about it in fact, that Christians are actually being encouraged to run for office and spread their ideology.

Which is it, liberals?

Who Says That the Hiawatha LRT is Unsuccessful?

To find out, read this blog article and the comments[1]Avidor 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That link is to his own anti-Bachmann blog, where he insinuates that "PRTistas" (his name for anyone who mentions PRT) are calling Hiawatha unsuccessful, even though the editor who made that edit (Sparbass) is new here and has never edited the PRT article. In fact, Sparbass changed his edit to "success" here, which leads me to believe that Sparbass might be a strawman sock puppet created by @vidor to trigger this fake controversy. (I don't use @vidor's real name here because he has objected to his name being used on Wikipedia, because he was a "retired" user then. So I don't spell out his full name on Wikipedia). ATren 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't play tennis for Saint Scholastica and I don't contribute to the Republican Party. I am not related to anyone who lives in North Oaks and donates money to Republicans. I am not related to anyone who works on Mark Kennedy's campaign. Does that answer your question? If you have any complaints, ATE/A-Tren, why don't you bring them up with an administrator?.... oh, I forgot... you don't get along with administrators... here's a good example: [2]Avidor 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And if Sparbass is a Hiawatha-hating "PRTista", then why did he later make this edit supporting your view? You're the one who started this with your inflammatory blog entry blaming the edits on "wacky PRTistas". Next time, maybe you should think twice about making exaggerated and unsubstantiated accusations on your blog. When you pull a stunt like that, your motives and tactics will be questioned, especially given that you have a long history of deceptive sock puppetry outside of Wikipedia, and you have even stated publicly that such behavior is no big deal.
But I am not going to get into another irrelevant talk page war with you. The article as it stands states verifiable fact without POV. I consider the matter closed.

I totally have no clue what the above stuff relates to. The fact is, Hiawatha is wildly successful and I have never seen a critique of it other than Bachmann's stupid claim that half the riders are freeloading. Having said that, the only specific quote I found on the net is one that specifically states "early success". In reality "early success" is successful, since it has only been in place a couple of years. Xinconnu 23:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Two sources:[3] [4] If that's not good enough, you can call up the Met Council or Hennepin County and ask them .Avidor 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually said I knew of no one anywhere who thinks it is not a wild success. Xinconnu 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Eligibility to Practice Law in Minnesota

I deleted the part about her no longer being eligible to practice law in Minnesota. Although in absolute sense this is true, I feel it is irrelevant, and it's inclusion in this entry was biased. It implies, or at least raises the possibility that she was disbarred. Although I do not know why she is no longer eligible to practice law in Minnesota, she was not disbarred: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/list.html. Most likely she just stopped paying her annual fee to the Minnesota bar after she stopped practicing law. This is trivial and shouldn't be in the article.

- I disagree with this. This reference should stay, because Michele Bachmann frequently claims to be a tax litigation attorney (present tense). The facts are that she is a former tax litigation attorney. Her ads said former (this was probably after the Dump Bachmann blog published the evidence of her not currently eligible to practice law. I think this should not be a section by itself, but the material should be included in the section on her career as tax litigation attorney for the IRS. Lloydletta 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


-- I am curious to see cases she has tried as an attorney.

Quotes

The quotes section has gotten incredibly long. While it's amusing to see a borderline looney bin (in my personal opinion) hang herself by her own words, Wikipedia is not a quote repository. That's what Wikiquote is for, and apparently they're not a fan of her quotes, either. I'm of the opinion that the quotes section should be scrapped. Thoughts? Captainktainer * Talk 05:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they are good evidence of positions that would otherwise come across as lacking an NPOV Xinconnu 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention, there are smart quotes all over the place. Gross. --Marumari 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice SMEAR Job Wikipedia

The inmates truly ARE running the asylum here. You know you're in troble when a bona fide Christ hater like Captainktainer is the one telling you guys to cool it on the quotes.

Bachmann's Wikipedia article is a smear, hate and slime HIT piece.

Yet her liberal opponent's wikpideia article is essentially a hagiography.

No wonder they're starting a 'new' wikiepdia, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.141.76 (talk • contribs)

It's funny when the article is called a "smear article" when it mostly consisted of her own quotes. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it amusing that the anon would tar me with the label of "Christ hater," especially given the fact that I am... you know... a Christian. To be honest, I think Ms. Bachmann does an excellent job of hanging herself with her own rope. But really... the quote section longer than the entire freaking article is incredibly excessive. Captainktainer * Talk 04:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material

TDC, what about the removed material does not meet WP:BLP? The three main points are: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research. Thanks -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I read some more and I agree with some of the removal but not others. I believe all of the items in her 1st platform section list should stay though, as they are well supported factual points. I think the section on her evolution quotes should be removed and possibly her sentence on "supporting intellegent design" should be expanded as she seems to go beyond supporting it to opposing evolution. I also think that we should include more information in the 2006 congressional election section that was left. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blogs, for one are most certainly do not qualify as WP:RS or WP:V. The incidental information on William Hawks is POV as it has little to do with the subject aside to smear her. Also specific examples of who gave what to Bachmann is a violation of WP:NOR, unless the issue has also been raised by someone noteworthy. The attempt to smear Bachmann by linking her to James Dobson and expanding on that is also POV and a violation of WP:NOR, unless this too has been raised by someone of note.

One of the most serious issues is that the links provided do not support the material they are supposed to reference. For example, the sentence about Bachmann supporting privatizing social security along the lines of the CATO institute, is aboslutley positively not supported by the attached links.

I think the former version of the article is almost too far gone to improve upon. If this material is to be added, it needs to be done slowly with the above points taken into consideration. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, though the POV on your userpage doesn't inspire confidence. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Come on, thats not fair, I have a tag right on the top. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it is, it's my opinion. You show a right slant and you are editing conservative pages, don't you think thats a conflict of interest? I'm not going to complain but I am definitely going to double check your edits to this page. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Its a joke, settle down. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one thing--the sentence about Bachmann supporting privatizing social security along the lines of the CATO institute, IS absolutely supported by the attached link. It's from a Minneapolis Star Tribune news story, if you follow the link. It's footnote 7, in the fourth paragraph of the story. If you don't bother to read the documentation, where the hell do you get off editing this page?

And which blog documentation are you criticizing? The ones I checked are reprints of articles that were run in local newspapers that covered Bachmann in her home district, the articles have now been reprinted on blogs. What's wrong with that?

And what's wrong with printing documented facts about where a candidate gets her money from? How is that a "smear"?

Liquidation of documented facts from this article by someone who's p.o.'d about the reality of those facts is not acceptable. It's just scrubbing. There's no problem with someone editing the page to put in documented and positive info about Bachmann's record and platform; it's amazing to me that no one has ever so much as bothered to attempt that. But it's ridiculous to label this a "smear" when every single bit of it is documented--most of the sources are originally drawn from articles published in local newspapers, and the quotes are from Bachmann herself. The names, dates and sources are given. The idea here is to present truthful information about who this public figure/politician is. If you can't give specific reasons for removing each item you removed--it's just cheap vandalism. RaveDave, please tell me how to go about complaining, so if he tries scrubbing the page again we can get someone to referee this.--Bill Prendergast

1 - get a username (it gives some more credibility in the eyes of many). 2 - keep doing what you are doing, discuss on the talk page. 3 - read WP:BLP. 4 - strive for WP:NPOV. 5 - comprimize, lets work together to figure out what material is valid for the page. I personally believe some of the info you posted should stay and some should go. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. TDC, what's with the removal of all of the Minnesota Public Radio links? Public radio is a reliable source. Captainktainer * Talk 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
NPR is a reliable link, but like so much of what the anon editor continues to put in the article, what is in the link does not square up with what is in the link. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine, RaveDave, let's compromise. If anything is inaccurate or violates the Wiki policy, I want it out too.

First of all--"Torturous Cudgel"--I am not an "anonymous" editor. That's my real name, Bill Prendergast. I'm resident of Stillwater Minnesota (the district that Michele Bachmann currently represents, and part of the district she will represent in Congress if she is elected.) For more than two years I wrote articles on Bachmann and other local political topics for the Stillwater Gazette, our local daily paper. I registered and obtained a username this morning, when I found out that documented facts on Bachmann were being liquidated from the page. The username is BillPrendergast. If you are sincere in charging that the links don't square up with "what is in the link" (the footnote), I suggest that we go through the text of article line by line. I notice that you now concede that Bachmann backs privatization of SS (though you removed the fact that she advocates privatization along lines suggested by the Cato Institute, which appears in the source material you previously ignored.) I am going to repost the data, and I suggest that in the spirit of accuracy and fairness you do not remove it wholesale until you have written in here to discuss your exact reason for removing each line. The material is well-documented and its accuracy has been researched, your "shotgun" rationale of removing it wholesale because it is a "smear" is unjustified and may constitute vandalism. RaveDave--after examining the reposted material, I hope you will tell me which specific material you would remove, and why. As I have pointed out--there is nothing that prevents any user from posting counter-factual statements to this article. What I object to is TDC removing documented facts without providing any specific explanation for why he is doing so. This morning I contacted a Wiki advocate to advise me in this matter; I hope we can resolve the dispute here, through mutual discussion.--BillPrendergast

Bill - just to clarify a few points: an "anonymous editor" on Wikipedia is defined as someone not logged in as a username. The username itself does not necessarily reveal your true identity, but this is distinct from the notion of "anonymous editing". Now that you've created a username, you should always be sure to login before editing so your Wikipedia username is preserved in the edit histories - otherwise only your IP address appears in the histories. You should also sign all talk page comments with ~~~~ which will expand to your full username and datestamp. This convention makes it easier to follow talk page threads. Also, one final piece of advice: be patient and keep a cool head. Wikipedia has a wealth of policies and guidelines that may not be apparent to a new user, and what seems arbitrary to you might have a good reason behind it. It seems that Ravedave is willing and able to serve as mediator in this issue between you and TDC, so I suggest you trust in Ravedave's judgement in these matters. No article is on a deadline, so take your time, listen to your advocates, and eventually you will arrive at a solution acceptable to all. ATren 19:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no dog in this fight, I stumbled on this article several months ago a did a quick cleanup, I have no interest in the article or the subject. Bill has an aggressively negative attitude towards the subject, and is in violation of WP:BLP. There is nothing for Ravedave to mediate here, as I have no further interest in editing the article, only correcting violations. Someone has to. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a fight. :-) I really don't have an interest in Bachmann either, except that some anti-PRT sentiment has occasionally seeped into this article due to Bachmann's support of PRT. So I have it on my watchlist. I think there's a general sentiment that the quotes section had gotten too large, and there are a lot of edits by anti-Bachmann bloggers, so some oversight is definitely warranted. But if you don't want to be involved (I don't either, really, except when PRT is brought up) I think Ravedave and others can handle any issues. ATren 20:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Also the quotes should go into Wikiquote, thats what it is for. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Bill, you would also do good to read what What Wikipedia is not, namely one of your blogs. You need to justify the addition of material that has shown itself to not abide by the editing guidelines of Wikipedia. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Bill , you appear to not be logged in when posting your items, I am seeing edits from: User:69.180.191.119. A line by line analysis is probably the best way to go. As both of obviously have strong points of view I will try and be the mediator. Wikipedia should be accurate, so material should be decided on here then added, rather than added then removed. TDC would you like to list out various sentences/paragraphs that you believe are unsupported or don't meet WP:BLP? Or would you prefer Bill does so 1st?-Ravedave

I got an account recently. I have edited anonymously. I'm not sure whether that ip address was me. Lloydletta 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(help name my baby) 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Putting things back

Bill - It might be helpful to post the top THREE things you think should go back into the article HERE, and get some feedback. Otherwise there could be a lot of frustration - there seems to be some concern [5] at a higher level, which means that attempts by you to reinsert large chunks of text are probably going to be reverted on sight.

You've done a LOT of work, obviously, on the article. Some of it really is too granular (detailed) - all the quotes, and all the information on campaign contributors, for example (not to mention speculation as to membership in a high-level conservative organization). You'll not find that level of detail (or speculation) in other articles on other candidates, and it does unbalance the article. Other stuff, arguably, does belong. It would be good to talk here, first, starting with a few items; if no one objects within 24 hours, then when you re-insert it, it will be likely to stick. John Broughton | Talk 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John and RaveDave and TDC--
I will do as you suggest, and begin by reposting the material here, a few items at a time. I will read the materials that all three of you have suggested to me, and begin reposting the materials, a few lines at a time--in this space, starting tonight.

I'm away from my home computer now. Thank you for the time that you are all giving to this--as you can tell, I am new to this and I am trying to do the best I can with presentation of factual. It was never my intention to use this article as "one of my blogs"--that's why I limited materials I contributed to this article here to what I can prove with documentary evidence. I am more than willing to remove material that doesn't stand up to fact-checking or violates Wiki style guidelines. Suggestions for rephrasing are welcome.--BillPrendergast 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

--BillPrendergast 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I'm signed in, but the signature with timestamp button didn't work. User:Bill Prendergast 7:56pm, 2006
John, RaveDave,TDC--
First--if you want me to post "three things" that should go back in the article-- in what format do you want to see them in this "Editing" space? Do you want to see the raw code for the text and footnotes? Do you just want the text, so that it's easier read? If I simply post the text here, how will you check the footnotes/sources?
I'm off to read the Wiki materials you recommended now; please post the answers to my questions here.--BillPrendergast 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Add the wikitext (with brackets etc) please. We can look at the source for the ref addresses. Thanks for taking the time to cooperate on this, hopefully the article will be better because of it. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. TDC went through and removed a significant chunk of stuff that was properly sourced and NPV under some pseudo guise of not fitting Wikipedia standards. I am fine with most quotes going to Wikiquotes except where it is relevant to a specific aspect of Bachmann's life, events, or positions in the election. Most of the positional elements here, however, are well supported, in many cases through multiple sources. Xinconnu 05:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Per John Broughton and BillPrendergast above, please discuss here before adding back the information that was reverted. --Aguerriero (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I read, prior to signing in here again: WP:BLP, What Wikipedia Is Not, WP:RS,WP:V,WP:NOR.

1) First, let’s settle the issue of the quotes. I posted quotes from Bachmann speeches that are available as digital recordings marketed by a group that supports her agenda and candidacy. They are public speeches on policy. Must they all be moved to the Wikipage, or is it permissible to let some of them appear with the main article, as they represent this candidate’s politics and world view? If they must all be removed to the Wikiquotes page, how do I do that? 2) I would like to restore an external link that TDC deleted. This is a link to “The Bachmann Record”, an anti-Bachmann web page that is clearly identified as such. I see no reason why it should not be included as an external link, since we included a link to the Bachmann campaign’s web page, which is clearly a partisan, pro-Bachmann candidacy website. The material on “The Bachmann Record” website by the way, is sourced with primary and secondary materials that are relied on by journalists—FEC disclosure documents, articles from reputable newspapers and news sources, documented quotes from Bachmann herself. Here is the links section as I would have it. Please comment:

--BillPrendergast 05:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1) The problem with the quotes, I believe, was with the density, not the concept. In other words, instead of six quotes about Bachmann's position on teaching evolution (this is a hypothetical; I've not looked at the older version of the article), the article might contain one quote (or two) that illustrates her position, plus some other text that summaries her position (and is factual). Or, to put it differently, what I was suggesting, when I said "three things", was really political postions, actions, or other matters (Bachmann did X, Bachmann opposes Y, etc.). What I was looking for was subjects that got (in your opinion) eliminatedly completely when something should be in the article, or a subject that was trimmed back too far. What I suggest you do is simply post the full text of what you'd like to see on matters X, Y, and Z, below, without worrying that much about exactly how they would fit into the article, or whether they are audio quotes, written quotes, or whatever.
2) My experience with other articles on Representatives and candidates running for the House is that there is an ongoing debate on the issue of opposition websites, but in general they are excluded. Your point - that the candidate's website is cited, and it's hardly objective - is a good one. Personally I'm okay with adding back "The Bachman Record" (clearly identified) to the article, but I'd like to hear the opinion of others. John Broughton | Talk 12:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Blogs are unacceptable to use as citations, please remove them immediately, as well as any passages that are only cited by a blog. Also, the YouTube video is unacceptable; please remove that citation and the passage it supports. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If you can find where the clip on youtube orginally aired that is a perfectly acceptable reference. The youtube link can then be added in that same ref as a conveinience thing. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine - I hope someone can do that. YouTube is at best a questionable copyright, and at worst a blatant copyvio. I don't think we should use a copyvio as a citation. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The strib has an article about bachmann today and mentiones the video and quotes from it. Unfortunatly it is not online. things it mentions: that god colled her to politics, that she says that she isn't moderate and that women should be subservant to thier husbands. I will get exact quotes and a citation for the article shortly -Ravedave (help name my baby) 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok snagged a paper. Star Tribune, October 19, 2006, Page A3 "Videos, Internet recalibrate campaigns", Writers - Kevin Diaz and Rob Hotakainen. Quotes from the article:
  • "She said God also called on her to run for the state Senate and then for Congress"
  • "In an interview on Wednesday Bachmann denied she is a moderate. 'I think thats funny,' she said. "Nobody's ever accused me of being a moderate...I'm an unabashed conservative.'"
  • "'Tax law? I hate taxes,' She said. 'Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says: 'Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands"

That is a valid source. If someone could pickup the paper and verify the quotes it would be appreciated. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RaveDave-- I have the October 19th Star Tribune article here in my hand, page A3. The quotes you have cited above appear in the article you have cited.--BillPrendergast 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
When will you restore the external link to the Bachmann record, since you say you have no problem with that, and no one has objected?--BillPrendergast 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead and put it back in? John Broughton | Talk 01:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Scope

First, I hope it's clear that no one involved in this (constructive, really) discussion wants to remove relevant information. Bachmann's political positions clearly are based on her religious beliefs; that's important, for example.

Second, the detailed list of contributors is clearly unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a list. And if 300 people and organizations contribute to a campaign, it's often possible to go through and find a dozen or so who are controversial in some way. That really doesn't prove anything; more importantly, it's a distraction. The people contributed because (a) Bachmann's a Republican (not noteworthy) or (b) Bachmann has views that they support (and since the views are notable, that's what should be discussed). I've edited dozens of articles on candidates and incumbent Representatives; I've never seen the level of detail that this article had (and can only remember one or other articles where there was ANY detail whatsoever).

Third, having revised the article, I note that there seem to be large gaps: what did Bachmann do before getting into the legislature? What does her husband (primary wageearner?) do? Where is her BA/BS from? Did she ever use her law degree? How is the campaign going in terms of overall fundraising (versus her opponent)? Have outside organizations (RNCC, DCCC, MoveOn, etc.) spent money in the district? Newspaper endorsements? Was the incumbent she defeated in her first re-election in 2002 a Democrat or a Republican (and if Republican, who did she defeat in the general election? Who did she defeat, and with what % of the vote, in 2004? John Broughton | Talk 13:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your 3rd paragraph there is a fairly decent article (which is an anomoly from the particular publication) about Bachmann that answers that. The Chosen One from the City Pages Personally, I know from personal experience dealing with some of her more ardent supporters that any text from the article itself will be edited mercilessly and I do not feel like entering that battle on Wikipedia. After the election perhaps I will add to Wikipedia some information from the City Pages story.--Tony 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
John Broughton-- I answered as many of your questions about her pre-Senate days as I could and posted the answer to the previous section of this discussion, "Putting Things Back" above, with print citations/sources.--BillPrendergast 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[Note: the following was moved from the section above, to provide a better flow. - JB ]
John-- Here are the answers to the questions you asked about her pre Senate life
John— Here are answers to your questions.
what did Bachmann do before getting into the legislature?
Michele Amble graduated from Anoka High School in 1974. She enrolled in Winona State College (now Winona State University.) There she met her future husband, Marcus Bachmann. They began dating while working on Jimmy Carter’s campaign.
The couple married in 1978 and moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma where Michele enrolled at the Bible-based Coburn law school, an affiliate of Oral Roberts University.
A few years later Bachmann got a position as a U.S. Treasury Department attorney in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Cite for all of the above--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005
Bachmann claimed that she was a tax litigation attorney. Opponents could find no evidence that she had practiced law, and Bachmann attempted to set the record straight by claiming that she worked in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, representing the IRS against people who underpaid or didn't pay their taxes. She did this from 1988 to 1993. Cite: G.R. Anderson, “Somebody Say ‘Oh Lord!’”, The City Pages, February 23, 2005.
Bachmann eventually quit this job to become a full-time mother to their children. The Bachmanns took in 23 foster girls over the years.
Cite for all of the above--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005.
In 1999, Bachmann ran as one of a slate of GOP candidates for the Stillwater school board. The Stillwater school board election is normally non-partisan; candidates do not run with party endorsements. She and the other candidates were defeated.
Cite: Norman Draper, “GOP nod fails to help slate of five in Stillwater”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 3, 1999.
In 2000, Bachmann wrested the GOP endorsement from longtime GOP State Senator Gary Laidig. The GOP party establishment and the Senate GOP caucus supported Laidig’s attempt to defeat her in the primary election, but Bachmann triumphed and went on to defeat the DFL nominee Ted Thompson. (DFL stands for Democratic Farm and Labor Party, Minnesota’s Democratic Party.)
Cite--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005.
What does her husband (primary wageearner?) do?
Marcus Bachmann has a doctorate in clinical psychology and owns and operates a Christian counseling center in the St. Croix valley area.
Where is her BA/BS from?
Her undergraduate degree is from Winona State College (now Winona State University.) Cite--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005.
Did she ever use her law degree?
See above.
How is the campaign going in terms of overall fundraising (versus her opponent)?
Don’t know, have to check.
Have outside organizations (RNCC, DCCC, MoveOn, etc.) spent money in the district?
Yes. The RNCC and the DCCC have both spent money in the district. I would have to find a cite for this, though I know for a fact that both committees are sponsoring ads and mailings in the district. Do you really need this cite for the article? I submit to you that it’s an uncontested fact.
Newspaper endorsements?
I don’t have any record of newspaper endorsements for Bachmann.
Was the incumbent she defeated in her first re-election in 2002 a Democrat or a Republican (and if Republican, who did she defeat in the general election?
Her opponent in the first re-election of 2002 was DFL State Senator Jane Krentz. Cite--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005.
Who did she defeat, and with what % of the vote, in 2004?
I don’t have any information about a “2004 election” handy. It’s not in the biographical newspaper pieces I have in my files.
Note to John and RaveDave--
The material submitted --71.216.119.170 00:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)above in answer to your question was posted by User:BillPrendergast. My normal signature does not appear, because I am working from a public library in order to obtain paper copies of the material I am citing.
Note: I replaced the IP address with Bill's username above. Bill, did you try logging into the library computer? It might be worth a try, though if cookies are required it might not work. Just be sure to logout when you're done. :-) ATren 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, ATren--I will try that the next time I am there.--BillPrendergast 02:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've used the above, plus a review of original sources, to add info to the article. A couple of points:

  • Let's try to avoid double posting (here, then to the article) in the future. Way too much work. What I've done, which I hope is not controversial, is to post objective information from City Pages articles, information that is clearly NPOV (I hope that's clear, anyway.) The moral is that a news article that has a strong POV can still be mined for NPOV information for a wikipedia article. And anyone is welcome to do so - I don't own this article, and I don't want to be in the position of appearing to have to approve additions to it.
  • What Bachmann's involvement was with the charter school is less than clear (one article seemed to say, simultaneously, that the state closed it down and that Bachmann and her allies quit when confronted; those two points COULD be consistent but it's not obviously so. I don't think it's that important, frankly, and given the inconsistent information, I chose to leave it out. (I do note the wording of what WAS in the article was POV - and would be even if it exactly quoted the City Pages article, which it didn't.)
  • What is still missing from the article is info on bills that Bachmann authored while in the legislature. I think these can be objectively described (subject matter, result) without getting into POV statements such as whether the bills resulted in (say) the legislature being unable to deal with more important matters.
  • What I didnt' put back, but am willing to discuss is how much space should be given to details about contributors. My opinion (see above) is NONE, but as I said, I don't own the article, so if someone feels strongly elsewise, let's discuss. (If so, please start a separate section; this one is getting a bit long - thanks.) John Broughton | Talk 01:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
John--
  • If I understand you correctly, your suggestion that I don't "double-post" means that you wish me to post the "checked material" directly to the article, as I have done in the past. You and others will then use this space on the Discussion page to evaluate whether that's proper? That's fine with me, if I understand your suggestion correctly.
  • The significance of the charter school incident is political, which is why the City Pages author chose to include it. It is evidence that Bachmann's political views originate in her sectarian religious views. I didn't include the charter school incident in my biographical stuff, but I can see why other contributors might want it in the article--it documents this politician's worldview/policy perspective.
  • the bills she authored while in the legislature. I will track this down, using a newspaper source.
  • the "how much space should be given to details about contributors." I do strongly differ with you about this issue. I think the information about controversial and/or extremist contributors is quite relevant for people who are going to consult this page to see where this candidate is coming from. People should know, for example, that she has accepted more than $50K in contributions from an organization whose stated goal is to eliminate all funding for public schooling. And Bachmann's ties to James Dobson and the national evangelical political movement are not something that she advertises--but these ties and their out-of-state contributions are documented, her connections to Dobson's political activity are long-standing and they go to the core of her political mission.

Since you suggest we avoid double-posting, I will post information drawn from a recent news story from a reputable source and put it in the article. It is not "contributors" information, it is a news item about Dobson's interest and activity in this particular congressional race.

  • I know the article does not "belong" to you or anyone, but thank you for your interest and time in this matter. The article is already much better than the proto-snippet that resulted from TDC's editing. The goal, in my view, is to make the information accurate and valuable to the voters--and to do that, we must include references to and for Bachmann's documented extremist positions.

Wikiquote

Bachmanns page at wikiquote should probably be filled in, any takers? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For ease of scrolling, eyestrain purposes, I removed the Bachmann quotes I had posted to this part of the Discussion page. I created a Bachmann quotes page at wikiquote under her name, and posted the quotes there.--BillPrendergast 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What should and should not be in this article (take 2)

I just deleted material about (a) Bachmann's husband; (b) What Bachmann's (gay) step-sister said to her; and (c) Who James Dobson is and why he is supporting Bachmann. This article is about Bachmann.

There is plenty of information missing from this article about Bachmann's unusual views and actions. The paragraph on evolution and intelligent design, in the article, is a good example of how to do this: describe her position (paraphrasing what is in a newspaper article, being neutral); cite a bill she proposed; include what she said (briefly). The section on the Minnesota State legislature, for example, is much too brief; surely she did some interesting things there.

And yes, her views were included in prior versions of this article, but in a long list of quotes (if memory serves). What is needed is a more encylopedic (story-telling) approach. John Broughton | Talk 01:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why the information on Dobson and FoF is irrelevant to an article on Bachmann, since Dobson is a longstanding political ally and FoF's significant intervention on her behalf in a local political congressional election is of great interest and importance for people who wish to learn about Bachmann's political perspective prior to election day. In my opinion, omitting the fact that FoF is electioneering for Bachmann is analogous to omitting the fact that the GOP endorses her candidacy.

But though I feel that FoF's intevention in the current congressional race is indeed "about Bachmann",I will not repost it unless you agree that it is significant to understanding this candidate's politics.

Here is another problem. Per your recommendation, I have obtained a laundry list of votes that Bachmann cast in the state legislature. I am loathe to post it without putting it here first, since the list of votes is extensive and I know that "Wikipedia is not a list." The citation for the list is: Lawrence Schumacher, “Bachmann banks on moral issues”, St. Cloud Times, October 19, 2006. (Sources: Minnesota State Senate, Office of the Revisor of Statutes) http://www.stcloudtimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061019/NEWS01/110190054

Key votes taken and bills introduced in the Minnesota Legislature: State bonding bill (2006) — twice voted against. Eminent domain reform (2006) — twice voted in favor. Minnesota Twins sta dium (2006) — twice voted against. Tax increase on businesses with foreign operations (2006) — twice voted against. Minnesota Gophers football stadium (2006) — twice voted against. Alternatives to abortions support (2005) — voted in favor. Removing tobacco tax from final spending bill (2005) — voted in favor. Final spending bill with tobacco tax (2005) — voted once against, once in favor. Meth/sex offenders crime bill (2005) — voted in favor. Bringing gay marriage amendment to floor vote (2005) — voted in favor. Transportation bill with gas tax increase (2005) — voted against. Handgun permit to carry bill (2005) — voted in favor. Minimum wage increase (2005) — voted against. Upper bracket income tax increase (2005) — voted against. Introduced American Heritage in Minnesota Public Schools Act (2002-2006) — Died in committee. Introduced constitutional marriage amendment (2004-2006) — Died in committee. Introduced Academic Bill of Rights (2006) — Died in committee. Introduced bill repealing state alternative minimum tax (2006) — Died in committee. Introduced Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights constitutional amendment (2003) — Died in committee. Introduced bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote (2001) — Died in committee. Introduced constitutional amendment restricting state funds for abortion — Died in committee. --BillPrendergast 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In general, votes should be mentioned only in context of a larger discussion, or as filler if there isn't anything else. Even then, it's better to do grouping, like (social conservative label, voted against increasing minimum wage). (And this is done in the article.)
The seven bills that she introduced, on the other hand, ARE worth mentioning in the article (or, at least, what you think are the most important/illustrative ones). You're right about lists not being welcome, at least long ones, so a seven-bullet paragraph is NOT the way to go. Rather, what you want is in context of her positions, for example, or bundled with a quotation. Something like this:
"Bachmann is in favor of X. In April 2000 she said "I really believe in X because God told me so ..." . In May 2002 she introduced Bill 1234, "The Bill about X", which called for the state of Minnesota to do X1, X2, and X3. The bill died in committee. Bachmann said afterwards that "X wasn't given fair consideration / passed / treated fairly because ...."
What you don't want to include in such a paragraph are things like "Critics said the X bill was stupid" or "Doing X would actually cause more harm then good, according to Expert C." These are argumentive, and inevitably POV accusations will arise, because, well, how do you know the critic you quoted is typical, and what about Expert F who disagrees with Expert C. So, don't go there. Trust the reader - let him/her follow the links and make up his/her own mind.
Having said all that, what was added to the article looks pretty good to me - several of the bills are included already. I just tweaked it a bit; I hope what was trying to be accomplished comes through. John Broughton | Talk 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
John--thank you for the "template" explaining how to "treat" the information about the "seven bills she introduced." I will try to use it as a model for a discussion of her bills. One problem I foresee is that I don't (in each case) have sourced material handy to "flesh out" the reasons why she introduced some of these intiatives. But I do have some stuff, and I will include that information with the "bills introduced", posting each item to the article as it becomes available. I will exclude "argumentative stuff" per your suggestion.
I think I am getting what you mean by the encyclopedic/"story-telling" approach; I will try to stick to that in future additions.
--BillPrendergast 22:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but remember that there isn't a prize for getting every single bill to be mentioned in the article. And they can be mentioned as indications of something else (that is, as part of another "story"), rather than each needing a separate paragraph, where they seem important enough for the article. Finally, keep in mind that the goal here is to paint a full, accurate, useful (and interesting) portrait, so think about what's left out. And if you're unsure about whether something belongs in, test the water with one paragraph rather than (say) five, and see what happens. John Broughton | Talk 00:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:BOLD - in other words, don't hesitate to edit the article itself. You don't have to validate everything here, especially now that John has laid out a nice blueprint for future edits. If someone disagrees with your edits, they will revert or modify, and if there is a dispute you can always discuss here. ATren 01:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay ATren, I will read WP:BOLD. I know I don't have to validate everything on the Discussion page first, but when I got to that laundry list of Senate bills I felt the need to stop and ask for advice. My concern at this point is to keep the page accurate and useful, but I am still learning about Wikipedia style and procedures. For example, I still disagree with John B about inclusion of the fact of James Dobson/FoF intense interest in the outcome of this race, and their mobilization of churches to promote her election. What do I do with that fact, if I think it's important information, critical to an understanding of this candidate--but John sincerely disagrees? John took it down, because he thinks the article is about Bachmann; I want to include it, because it is an important fact about Bachmann and her candidacy for Congress. The fact goes off into the ether, if we can't agree on its inclusion? Note: This is respectful disagreement with John's "call", not a criticism of John.--BillPrendergast 05:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On Dobson, I thought we were talking about contributions. Yes, certainly if Dobson is mobilizing churches, that's newsworthy (as part of the campaign section of the article). John Broughton | Talk 12:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Bill: I only referred you to WP:BOLD because it's a natural impulse among some new editors to become too cautious after someone else reverts their edits. Also, I just think WP:BOLD is a really good and concise summary of what Wikipedia wants you to be: bold in making changes, and tolerant of others' bold changes.
Yes, the talk page is exactly where you would discuss stuff like the Dobson issue. In my (admittedly limited) experience, when there is a contentious point or phrase, and assuming both sides of the debate are reasonable, an equitable solution can usually be found by hashing it out on the talk page. In this example, it seems John was not objecting to Dobson per se, but rather the focus on contributions vs. campaigning; so a mention of Dobson in the context of his campaigning activities would likely be acceptable to all. If a point is relevant (and in this case, I agree that it is), then it may be only a matter of how and where to present it. ATren 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Improper removals by Aguerriero

I didn't contribute to this Michele Bachmann material. In fact, until tonight, until I came to this article from another Wiki page, I didn't even know who she was. With that said, I think Aguerriero was way off base with criticisms of 69.249.195.232 and removing material that was clearly not defamatory. Simply put, Aguerriero, you're not editing nor administrating. You're censoring, and doing it under the false guise of "defamation" and improperly using administrative powers to do so. You clearly do not understand defamation (I'm an attorney -- I do). The contributor sourced the material from two mainstream sites. You also marked his/her contributions as "vandalism," which it was not. I think your removals need to be reviewed by a neutral third party as you clearly seem to have some vested interest in this subject -- based on other contributions/comments you've made above -- and are making POV removals. You seem to be subjecting material to some sort of personal litmus test to which you expect others to adhere. Very anti-Wiki behavior, IMHO. I think you should completely stop making any edits or changes and turn this over to another administrator. You're obviously not being objective.207.69.139.11 05:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am here to review the removals. Which specific diffs do you object to and on what policy grounds, please? Your accusations are conclusory. As an attorney, you should know better. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's start by not insulting me and by not making ad hominem comments about me. It's inappropriate behavior for an administrator, and your immediate stridency and combativeness toward me makes one question your objectivity. Are you here as a neutral third party or are you here as Aguerriero's advovate in the guise of an administrator? If it's the latter, than your actions are immediately inappropriate. My statements were not conclusory accusations; they were well documented. (And before getting all huffy again, you might also want to read what I just posted in the Village Pump about rude and petty administrators -- it's in the section marked "The (Hopefully Reversible) Decline of Wikipedia."[6])
That notwithstanding, I clearly spelled out what the problem was above. Look at the history of the article. Trace Aguerriero's actions. Look at what he/she did about six hours before I posted this. In a nutshell: apparently not responding to any complaint, Aguerriero threatened to block 69.249.195.232 for editing material which he/she claimed was defamatory. Read his/her comments on 69.249.195.232's user page.[7] As noted, the contributions were double-sourced from mainstream sites and were thus not defamatory. (If material is sourced to a third party it cannot, by its nature, be considered defamation here, as a matter of American tort law, as Wikipedia is not the source of publication. As a 3L, hopefully you've learned that by now.)
As well, Aguerriero marked the removal as a "rv," and the contribution was not vandalism. Aguerriero's tone (like yours) is not neutral and "administrative" -- it's combative and strident. Aguerriero has taken a POV stance on this article's content, then threatens administrative actions against those who edit him/her. If you look at the history of the article, and 69.249.195.232's talk page, you'll see where the problem lies.
There used to be a policy that an administrator could not take administrative actions on pages to which he/she was contributing. Has that rule been discarded? Even if it has, quite simply, if Aguerriero is contributing to the article as an editor, he/she should not take any administrative actions against other users with whom he/she does not agree. It's a blatant conflict of interest. It's this sort of carelessness which weakens Wikipedia 207.69.137.12 06:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Reversion is not an administrative action, and neither is leaving comments/warnings on user talk pages. As far as I understand, Ag did not block/delete/protect anyone or anything, and therefore has not used his administrative powers where he edits. As a disclosure, yes, I am a friend of this user. I will address your substantive accusations tomorrow. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Aguerriero deleted material and incorrectly called it a reversion. And, Aguerriero posted on the user page, and I quote directly, "If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption" (emphasis added). Stating that someone will be blocked is an administrative action. So that's two admin actions right there. Further, given you are a friend of Aguerriero, then you should not be here acting as an administrator. You, of course, could contribute your opinion and comments, but your friendship is a conflict of interest and you should step away from the matter as an administrator. 207.69.137.12 06:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And Scalia is friends with Rumsfeld. When I say "delete", I mean do what lay users can't, delete articles. Anything he removed you can put back in if you gather consensus first. It's all in the history. Same with conduct warnings. He's free to issue them - he just shouldn't block on that basis himself, but rather solicit an uninvolved sysop to do so. What he did could have been done by any lay user. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, 207.69.137.12, thanks for taking time to voice your concerns. To concisely address your major points:

  • I don't have any interest in Michele Bachmann.
  • I don't contribute to this article other than removing inappropriate content, and have never heard of Michele Bachmann until an editor posted to an administrative noticeboard that such edits were being made here.
  • Part of my job as an administrator is to enforce Wikipedia policies. I'm sure that during the course of your research you read the policy on Biographies of living persons, which clearly states that potentially controversial material in articles about living people HAS to be reliably and neutrally sourced. That is non-negotiable.

So, here I am. I fostered discussion on this Talk page and most editors agreed to discuss controversial changes here before adding to the article. However, some people have continued to add controversial material to the article, sourced by blogs and other unreliable pages. I will continue to aggressively remove such additions, pursuant to policy, and I will warn and block people who add it, which is my job. A simple review of the article history shows that I have never contributed to this article, and a simply review of my personal contributions shows what I am interested in editing, and it's not political articles. Have a great day and let me know if you have any further concerns. --Aguerriero (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Along with the inappropriate and embarrassing content that cited blogs that was rightfully removed, content that had apparently reliable sources was also removed. See this edit.

This statement is from citypages.com, which seems to be a newspaper. It lists many reputable newspapers as sister newspapers, like the Village Voice and LA Weekly. In the past, I have heard the term "sister newspapers" used when they are owned by the same parent company. Unfortunately, I was unable to determine their relationship from their websites or through whois. However, the note in the reference says that the author is a senior editor and public affairs columnist, so I think that it is a newspaper, not a blog.

"Some of Bachmann's local critics charge that she could be more accurately described as a Christian fundamentalist political candidate. [1]"

A statement that was referenced by Bachmann's own book was also removed.

After she was elected to the Minnesota State Senate, Bachmann charged that federal laws (such as the School-To-Work law) showed that the United States had a governance structure opposed “to both free enterprise and representative government.” Bachmann claimed that the US government had formally adopted “the failed ideas of a state-planned and managed economy similar to that of the former Soviet Union.” She wrote that the federal government had now “consolidated all local, state and federal policies, programs and funding into a state-managed economic system.” Bachmann also charged that the US was implementing a new national school curriculum that embraced a “socialist, globalist worldview; loyalty to all government and not America.”[2]

Content that was cited to The Pioneer Press, "a Media News Group newspaper and the winner of three Pulitzer Prizes" was also removed.

The Internal Revenue Service opened an investigation into the tax-exempt status of a church, after Bachmann spoke to the congregation about her campaign, and received the endorsement of the pastor. A news story broke out after videos appeared on the video-sharing website Youtube. [3]

Were these removals intentional? If they were, why do you consider them inappropriate? I looked up defamation and according to U.S. law, when the person is a public figure, you have to know that the information is false and publish it anyway. See the Britannica definition. -- Kjkolb 11:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

City Pages is a weekly, printed newspaper. I personally wouldn't quote a writer from the publication if he/she said "Candidate X is (whatever)", because the writers have a lot of freedom in their articles to express personal opinions (as, opposed, say, to the Washington Post, but if the paper quotes someone, or provides factual information (Candidate X attends Church Y), then yes, in my opinion that clearly is acceptable information per WP:RS. The paper has editors and a review process; it can certainly be sued for libel and be put out of business (and it's owned by a corporate group that also has assets).
I suggest that if Aguerriero doesn't get around to replying in, say, 24 hours, and if no one else has valid objections, that you or someone else put the information back in. John Broughton | Talk 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! Yes the removals were intentional, and they were due to a WP:BLP/N complaint. Basically, Factmissionary (talk · contribs) came in, and as their very first edit, added a lot of text to this article. Much of it was completely inappropriate and the rest needed discussion (I still don't think any of those citations are reliable, but the community can decide that). So I decided to revert them and ask that potentially negative things be discussed here before addition (as it has). If the editors here decide that some of subjective cases are permissible (like the citypages blog, or her own book), it certainly should be added back. My only purpose here was to get discussion going and protect the page from violations of WP:BLP. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch out for those pre-election scrubs

Check that last attempted deletion of an anti-Bachmann link on the "History" page. See what we're dealing with here, guys? I bet you see more attempts at deletion before the election's over. The race is VERY close right now, and there's going to be the usual last minute political panic attacks you see before the end of a close election. Locally, the tone of the election is getting very "high-pitched"--the Star Tribune broke a story about how Bachmann's church is doctrinally committed to teaching that the Roman Catholic papacy is the Anti-Christ. That just came out a few days ago and it hit talk radio today. (Bachmann denied it on television a few days ago.) Thanks to all of you who are watching for last minute "scrubs" of the links and the documented information.--BillPrendergast 02:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is not my blog, but thanks to all administrators who volunteered their time to monitor the integrity of this entry, pre-election.--BillPrendergast 07:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


The footnotes to the article have been trashed

I don't know how, but there's a mess of html where the footnotes used to be. Wawaconia, I assume this has something to do with your editing, if I'm wrong I apologize--but could you revert to an earlier version with intelligible footnotes, then re-add your new stuff again without compromising the footnotes? I have an earlier version of the article but I hate to put it that one back up because you have made additions since then.--BillPrendergast 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. If a reference/footnote isn't closed right, it can swallow a lot of things. John Broughton | Talk 01:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John for the fix, I'll make a point of keeping on eye on this in the future.--Wowaconia 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


IMHO--refer to her as "Bachmann" not as "Michele"

I'm taking out the instances where Bachmann is referred to by her first name (it was misspelled as "Michelle") and substituting her last name--Bachmann. The reason I've done this, now and before, is that referring to a politician by their first name is not encyclo pedia style. (eg, I checked the article on Congressman Richard Pombo of California and he is not referred to as "Richard" in the body of the article, Nixon is not referred to as "Dick", etc.) Referring to her by her first name is appropriate for Bachmann's campaign web page, not for an encyclopedia article.


I used her first name as a method to avoid bad writing style. Instead of beginning every sentence with Bachmann or letting the word Bachmann appear close to its last appearance I used the word Michele (admittedly misspelled - thanks for the correction). I would argue that this practice is acceptable by pointing you to the Wiki article on Hillary Clinton where the following lines are taken from...

"As a child, Hillary was involved in many activities at church and at a public school in Park Ridge."
"On October 11, 1975, when Hillary was 27 years old and Bill was 28 years old, the Clintons married in Fayetteville, Arkansas."
"During the Lewinsky scandal, Hillary initially claimed that the allegations against her husband were the result of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'."
"Both Bill's and Hillary's memoirs later revealed that the revelation of the affair was in reality a very painful time in their marriage."
I think if you review my contributions to Michele Bachmann's wiki here that you'll see I'm striving for impartiality.--Wowaconia 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the articles for politicians Diane Feinstein of California, Marylin Musgrave of Colorado, and Nancy Pelosi of California. Throughout the Feinstein article, she's referred to as Feinstein. Throughout the Musgrave article, she's referred to as Musgrave. Throughout the Pelosi article, she's referred to as Pelosi. They don't use first names to refer to these female polticians in the body of the articles. The "style" issue you raise ("Instead of beginning every sentence with Bachmannn or letting the word Bachmann appear close to its last appearance") isn't considered an issue in those articles. I think the reason that Hillary is permissible instead of "Clinton" (in the Wiki article on HC) is that it helps to distinguish her from her equally famous husband; that's not an issue in this article. If you can't justify reason for treating Bachmann differently than Feinstein, Musgrave, and Pelosi, I'll remove the Micheles again and substitute Bachmanns. No offense, I think most of the stuff you're putting in is great; I just can't see the reason for treating Bachmann differently than similary situated politicians.--BillPrendergast 06:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your number of examples is convincing. I will rearrange sentence structures to change any perceived existing style problems and use Bachmann or Michele Bachmann in anything that's not a quotation in future segments.--Wowaconia 07:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just used "Michele" for when she wasn't married. I think this jives with clarifying between her and Marcus Bachmann. I think this is better for the reader than using her maiden name which may be confusing.--Wowaconia 22:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the segment about Profiles of Learning too long?

When I began the segment on her "Opposition to Profile of Learning and School-to-Work Policies" I was unaware that there were wiki articles on both programs. I could reduce this segment and refer the reader to sections of that wiki article. Also the quotes from critics of these programs are from Michele's compatriots but not from her, which I would really like to replace. While I wish to maintain all appearances of objectivity in the article, the only good source I could find that quotes Michele on these topics is dumpbacmann.org. I'll use that source if I can't find anything else, as I'd rather put her own words in here. Still for the sake of maintaining all appearances of objectivity I'd appreciate any help in finding a less controversial source.--Wowaconia 06:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I'm a contributor to Dump Bachmann. I, too, am striving for objectivity in this article. I would be leary of using unsourced quotes from Dump Bachmann--it is a blog, and they frown on using blogs as sources here. On the other hand, I know that a lot of the stuff on Dump Bachmann has links that lead to sources that are acceptable under Wiki standards. If they linked to a Bachmann quote on the the Profile of Learning from a respectable publication or to a Bachmann public address or publication on the subject--I can't see objecting to using that linked source as a source for a footnote.
Is the segment too long? Maybe. The Profile of Learning issue was key in Bachmann's career in her first years in the state house, so it deserves coverage. Its modification is arguably her biggest legislative accomplishment so far. The guideline for what to cover and how much attention to give it that I have been following is the one suggested by John Broughton--"the article is about Bachmann, not about (fill in the blank--the Profile of Learning, Intelligent Design, whatever.) So I'd explain what advocates of the Profile intended it to be, then explain why MB opposed it, and then explain what she did about it--a sentence or two for each explanation.--BillPrendergast 06:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


the Intelligent Design thing

In the section at issue, we were writing about B's 1999 school board campaign. Here's the original version, which I then edited: It is reported that Bachmann also promoted having classes on Intelligent Design. Bachmann denies that she spoke of Creationism in the campaign (the issue remains unclear as many see the theories as independent of one another). Critics also claim that the GOP was funding the campaigns of its endorsed slate for the Stillwater school board, a claim Bachmann denies.[13]

First: The article cited in footnote 13 doesn't provide support for the statement "It is reported that Bachmann also promoted having classes on Intelligent Design." Also, I think we are supposed to avoid "it is reported that" statements in Wiki articles. So I removed that statement, I don't think it should be returned until someone can justify it with a document or record. I hope someone can provide tangible evidence of Bachmann advocating ID on the public school curriculum during the 1999 election; she certainly suggested its inclusion on the curriculum after she was elected to the State Senate.

Second: I am removing the parenthetical "(the issue remains unclear as many see the theories as independent of one another)" There is a political (not scientific) controversy about whether Intelligent Design is science or not. See the Wiki article on Intelligent Design. There isn't any real controversy within the scientific community about ID, because-to my knowledge, and after checking again--there aren't any articles in any respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals that lend credence to the ID theory. Saying that "many see the theories (of Creationism and ID) as independent of one another" constitutes "weasel words." Anyway, it's an article about Bachmann, not about the scientific status of ID.--BillPrendergast 07:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You were right that I had neglected to source these comments. On my first reading of the sources I thought that they indicated a conflict between her story and that of City Pages that could be resolved if one assumed Bachmann drew a distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design as those who supported I.D. in the federal courts had, thus the inclusion of the parenthetical material. Thanks to you pointing out my forgetting to source the material I reread the sources and came to the conclusion that her vocal support of I.D. may well have ended while the school board campaign was ongoing. Therefore I have made a new segment that appears to be the correct reading of all the sources and restores the fair assumption that neither Bachmann nor City Pages and its sources are lying on the issue. I feel this really improves the whole article, thanks again.--Wowaconia 08:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Pulkrabek's comments?

Does anyone know if Bachmann was ever asked to respond to Repulican party leader Pulkrabek's comments about her wanting the GOP endorsement? This seems like an absolute contradiction with her claim that she was drafted. I find it hard to believe that I'm the first person to catch this. Both the article with Bachmann's claim and the other article with Pulkrabek's comments are from the City Pages - did someone over there ever put the question to her?--Wowaconia 09:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re, Pulkrabek question about "absolute contradiction" in her story. What I am about to say is entirely inappropriate for inclusion in the body of the article, but it is good background for anyone trying to follow this politician's career. When Bachmann is called out on an apparent contradiction or outright lie by a member of the media or a member of the public, her common response is to either 1) pretend that the question has not been asked, and move on to a different subject; or 2) answer with another lie. Nonetheless, the local news media have commonly accepted whatever version of events in her life and career and past statements she is offering at the moment. You may well be the first person to notice that her account of how "she was drafted" contradicts Pulkrabek's version (that she sought endorsement.)--BillPrendergast 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Did she pull her kids out of the Charter school after quiting?

Some sources say her children received their education through either charter or home schooling, I've got some sources that say all of her children were homeschooled. So it looks to me that the ones that where in the Charter school were pulled out when she quit and that she never sent any of her biological kids outside the home for primary education after that. Does anyone have any info on this? I'm also kind of puzzled as to why she thought regular public education was not good enough for her bioligical kids but was fine for the foster children placed in her care.--Wowaconia 10:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Did she even want the School Board position?

Since Bachmann went to Pulkrabek for the State Senate seat and he told her to run for School Board is there evidence that she desired that position? She kept on going across the state with EdWatch instead of campaigning in Stillwater. Does anyone have any record of how much time or money she put into the School Board run? Does anyone have any record of her saying she was disappointed in not getting the position?--Wowaconia 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a record of the time or money she spent on the School Board run. I don't have a record of her saying that she was disappointed in not getting the position. I have always assumed that the School Board run was a "feeler" candidacy to get her name before the public. Here is why: the first time I heard of MB was when she appeared on local Christian radio as a candidate for School Board. She was promoting her candidacy on station KKMS, a Christian broadcasting station owned by Salem Communications, a national syndicate of Christian radio stations. They run programs on local and national current affairs--political talk radio--as well as "pastoral" programming/evangelical radio ministry programming. I think that the purpose of her appearances on these programs was to raise her political profile locally and identify her to the audience as a "Christian candidate." Is there a way that I could contact you, Wowaconia? I live in Stillwater Minnesota, I assume from your pseudonym that you live somewhere nearby. If you do, and you are interested, I could invite you to lunch and we could discuss Bachmann's career.--BillPrendergast 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Should article be split?

Due to wiki-standards about page size I was thinking I could move the information about the conservative groups (EdWatch and Minnesota Family Council) that have supported her to a new page and put a link in this article to there in the segment about her opposition to the Profiles of Learning. Something like "With her outspoken opposition to the Profiles of Learning, Bachmann began associations with local conservative groups seen by many as controversial - See [link to new page would go here]." As these groups have continued to support her and she speaks at their events and has them appear with her at the capital, a link to this new page could appear several times in the rest of the main Michele Bachmann article. As she has worked so closely with these groups her entire political career I believe some mention of them is critical for any understanding of Bachmann and her politics.--Wowaconia 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should take out the information out entirely--for the reasons you gave above; these groups are key factors in MB's philosophy and political rise. Suggestion--you do the link as you suggest but retain capsule descriptions of the groups (one or two sentences a piece) and combine the existing separate sections into one section. I think you are right to be concerned about wiki-standards for page size, because as you continue to document Bachmann's "non-party" political affiliations, you're going to run into other groups that played key roles in promoting her career--one is the Family Research Council (Tony Perkins) and the other is Focus on the Family (James Dobson). The local ally of these two groups, the Minnesota Family Council (Tom Prichard) was also instrumental in helping turn out voters for her massive rallies in favor of an amendment banning gay marriage in Minnesota. If wiki-format is a concern but you're going to err on the side of inclusion, you'll need to save room for mentions of these groups' influence on the page.--BillPrendergast 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Statements:Bachmann believes that God called her to run for Congress and the Minnesota State Senate.

I removed a previous edit stating that Bachmann claimed that God "led" her to seek Congressional office. It is more accurate to use her own terminology: "God called me"

I added her claims that God called her to run for the Minnesota State Senate and for Congress to the appropriate sections. The source for these statements in the article is the testimony of Michele Bachmann on Saturday, October 14, 2006, at Pastor Mac Hammond's Living Word Christian Center, in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Both statements were recorded, broadcast and documented and can still be viewed on YouTube.

Here is the original statement on her belief that God called her to run for the Minnesota State Senate, recorded in that same testimony: “And in the midst of all this, as if we didn't have enough to do, He called me to run for the Minnesota State Senate. I had no idea, and no desire to be in politics. Absolutely none.”

Here is the original statement about how God called her to run for Congress, also from the broadcast videotape: “And in the midst of that calling, God then called me to run for the United States Congress. And I thought, what in the world would that be for. And my husband said "You need to do this." And I wasn't so sure. And we took three days, and we fasted and we prayed. And we said "Lord, is this what you want, are You sure? Is this Your will?"  And after, along about the afternoon of day two, He made that calling sure.”--BillPrendergast 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Bachmann has a history of saying that most of her movements can be attributed to calls from the divine (from political runs to even marrying her husband) I think this article would be best served if these were collected and quoted in their entirety in their very own segment, perhaps titled "Claims of Divine Calling". The quotes about being called to marry her husband despite her own reservations is particularly revealing in my opinion, but the reader might not see that this follows her established pattern if merely reduced to single sentances that read "Bachmann believes God called her to...". Since she attended Oral Roberts affiliated Law school and he (unlike many Christians of other denominations) claims to have two way conversations with Jesus, this could be included as background or comparison to reveal more about Bachmann, her history, her beliefs, and her motivations. The single sentence mentions in the more political history portions could then be dropped as they would be rendered redundant and they’re more about an unchanging motivation than an advancing and changing political history.--Wowaconia 00:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted an answer to your suggestion about a new section called "Claims of a Divine Calling", and it went off into the ether. Here is what I said:

1) You raise a very important issue. If a reader comes here to learn about MB and what role she believed God played in her life and career, use of the phrase "Bachmann believes that God called her to..." is probably inadequate to explain that. A reader unfamiliar with the actual wording of Bachmann's claims might incorrectly assume that Bachmann meant that God sent her a "feeling" or "inspiration", etc. This was not the type of experience Bachmann claimed to have had. Bachmann's remarks indicate that she believes that God contacted her directly, communicated specific instructions to, that she spoke to God at the time and asked him questions, and that in certain instances God sent her supernatural visions to show her what to do. So perhaps in this case direct quotes from her remarks are the best way of explaining to readers what she believes about her relationship with God.

2) I foresee a problem with setting this out as a separate section. To my knowledge, there's only one documented, reliable record of Bachmann claiming that God told her to do the things she's done, and that's the Mac Hammond Christian Living Center testimony that is cited in the footnotes. If do it as a separate section, that, to my knowledge, will be the only verifiable instance of her making such claims (though I strongly suspect she's made the same claims in other religious venues.) That is the only instance that is non-controversial; it can't be denied because it was caught on videotape before an audience and distributed all over the web. I asked around and so far no other local Bachmann watchers have informed me of a documented instance in which she's made similar claims. I will keep asking.--BillPrendergast 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've spent a couple of days talking to people who have files on B's public statements. They can't come up with any other documented instances in which MB claims that God came to her and told her to run for office--besides those claims caught on video at the Mac Hammond church. That doesn't mean she hasn't made the same claims in other venues--I'm inclined to believe she has--but no Bachmann tracker I've spoken to has come up with anything that would meet Wiki standards for documentation.--BillPrendergast 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Her claim to have worked hundreds of cases for the IRS should be allowed to stand.

User:Lloydletta takes issue with the statement "From 1988 to 1993, Bachmann was a U.S. Treasury Department attorney in the US Federal Tax Court located in St. Paul, Minnesota. Representing the Internal Revenue Service in hundreds of cases, both civil and criminal, she prosecuted people who underpaid or failed to pay their taxes."

Lloydletta continues to remove reference "to hundreds of cases". This editor states that "This isn't backed up except by Michele Bachmann's own claims"

I point out that the Wikipedia standard WP:V#SELF states:

"Material from self-published sources...may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."

I maintain that in a six year career at the IRS that it is inconceviable that she was not involved in hundreds of cases. These are tax courts and even civil tax courts so the idea of a lengthy LAW & ORDER type trial is not what's going on. Usually these courts issue fines. I find no reason to drop her claim that she worked on hundreds of cases. I do not see how this is contentious or self-serving, I think if she hadn't she would have been fired. I think it should be included because "it is about events directly related to the subject".--Wowaconia 10:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the claim again - because I don't think it can be backed up. I understand through a source who did opposition research on Bachmann for one of her GOP opponents, that Bachmann's claim of 100s of cases is overblown. Bachmann has a history of making claims that are inaccurate - so she does need to be fact checked. I have documented several other errors in Michele Bachmann's congressional bio - which has resulted in those sections being removed from the bio. Specifically, her bio claimed that Financial Services was a big industry in her district. After the Dump Bachmann blog challenged her to back up that claim, that section was removed from the bio. The Dump Bachmann blog is opposed to Bachmann, but we do fact check our posts.

On January 11, 2007 on Bill Bennett's talk show, Michele Bachmann made the claim that "My entire practice was exclusively in the federal tax court".

From City Pages - Somebody Say Oh Lord (also cited for the claim of "hundreds of cases"):

"It was around this time that questions regarding Bachmann's résumé surfaced. She had a law degree, she said, and claimed to be a tax litigation attorney. But opponents said they could find no evidence that she had practiced law. Bachmann sets the record straight by saying she worked in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, representing the IRS against people who underpaid or didn't pay their taxes. She did this from 1988 to 1993."

I believe that there isn't enough evidence to support Bachmann's claims of 100s of cases, and so I think it's worth getting some backup for that claim (outside of Michele Bachmann's bios). Otherwise, wikipedia gets sourced for that claim, rather than Michele Bachmann's bios.

Lloydletta 17:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the worry is that Wikipedia will be cited as the source of this claim so I have added caveats to the sentence it now reads "According to Bachmann, she represented the Internal Revenue Service 'in hundreds of cases' (both civil and criminal) prosecuting people who underpaid or failed to pay their taxes." As the City Pages indicated that she was trying to distance herself from her past of prosecuting those who thought that the tax system was unfair, and then was running on a platform to change what she saw as an unfair tax system - I think her impulse would be to down play her IRS history so I don't see how this is self-serving. Unless some reliable source can prove that she didn't do this I think that with the cavaets this sentence should be allowed to stand. And as a side point the question of if she served in "both civil and criminal" cases is different than the caseload question and should not be deleted just because its in the same sentence. Its deletion would merit its own discussion. Some criminal tax cases put people in jail (not often but it can happen) civil cases are just about money - I wish someone would've found out if she put anyone in jail for refusing to pay taxes because they thought the system was unfair that would've been an intresting campaign topic.--Wowaconia 22:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the reference for the "hundreds of cases" to more clearly directly reference her bio - and leave GR Anderson's article as a reference at the end of the sentence. I have heard from a reliable source that this hundreds of cases is inaccurate - that the number is more like 10 or so cases. Hopefully this edit will be allowed to stand.Lloydletta 05:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have consensus. The quote stays but it is stressed that it is her claiming this. Moving the ref note immediately next to the quotations seems entirely appropriate.Wowaconia 05:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The edits added by 1shamrocks9 is extremely NPOV. That account only contributed those edits and nothing else to Wikipedia. If you read the changes, you'll easily see the bias. I propose we remove them.

Comatose51 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility to Practice Law in Minnesota

I deleted the part about her no longer being eligible to practice law in Minnesota. Although in absolute sense this is true, I feel it is irrelevant, and its inclusion in this entry was biased. It implies, or at least raises the possibility that she was disbarred. Although I do not know why she is no longer eligible to practice law in Minnesota, she was not disbarred: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/list.html. Most likely she just stopped paying her annual fee to the Minnesota bar after she stopped practicing law. This is trivial and shouldn't be in the article.

  • Note: The above was an unsigned comment originally appearing - Revision as of 04:27, 11 October 2006 by 68.169.41.40 (as per history in Talk:Michele Bachmann/Archive 01)

- I disagree with this. This reference should stay, because Michele Bachmann frequently claims to be a tax litigation attorney (present tense). The facts are that she is a former tax litigation attorney. Her ads said former (this was probably after the Dump Bachmann blog published the evidence of her not currently eligible to practice law. I think this should not be a section by itself, but the material should be included in the section on her career as tax litigation attorney for the IRS. Lloydletta 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Did something happen to the revision history when the talk was moved to an archive. I can't seem to see earlier versions. Lloydletta 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See this. The histories got moved with the archival - you can get to it via the history tab on the archive page. Usually histories don't get moved like this - I think it only happens when the entire page is archived using a page move - but they are still accessible via the archive page. ATren 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How can one cite that they are an attorney in their biography when they are not licensed to practice law in their state of residence? Grwhitaker (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions of length should be about what information should be placed in a sub-page, it is not a license to delete.

I've restored the information that a new user deleted wholesale from this article without discussing the matter on this talk page. When length questions arrive to an article the correct policy is to move large segments to their own sub-page and make a small paragraph on the main-page pointing to the sub-page. Deleting valuable information to fit length suggestions (they are not even guidelines anymore) is improper. If an editor has an issue whether some information is unwarranted in the article it should be discussed on this talk page instead of arbitrarily deleted.--Wowaconia 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved a lot of information to assorted sub-pages, added summary paragraphs here pointing to the sub-pages and now this page is below the Wikipedia:Article size 50kb threshold where page divisions are suggested.--Wowaconia 09:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for editing this article down. I've been doing quite a bit of reading about the new Congress, reading about various Representatives as they give speeches on C-Span etc. This is by far the longest article for a Congressman/woman I'd run across. OPMaster 11:51, 8 February 2008

The length seems mostly an attempt to swamp out the controversy surrounding all her national gaffes. Bachmann is the party's next Katherine Harris.
This is the first I've seen the article (surprisingly). I would say at the moment its quite proper length, has covered much of the major implications of her office (so far) and simply needs to be edited down. Meaning excessive words and repeating of sentences need to be combined together. For example the whole gay marriage part is just a collage of facts, it could be trimmed in one solid paragraph. I'll prob go do that later tonight as an example. .:davumaya:. 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If it was truly a concern, a more appropriate edit would have been to simply add:",however, she was not disbarred." or to restate it as "She is no longer an attorney in Minnesota." or further, in the spirit of Wikki "despite her continued representations that she IS a tax attorney, the State Bar of Minnesota does not list her as currently eligible to practice law." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.219.100 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture of kissing Bush

While much has been made of her kissing Bush at the State of the Union, for those of you who missed it (like me) there is copyrighted picture here: http://cache.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/0f4a067c335a50ebeaa0f28d81e1faab.jpg

I wouldn't bother trying to post it in the article as a bot will merely delete it for not being public domain.--Wowaconia 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

Editors, please note that the sub-pages of this article (Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI, Michele Bachmann's 1999 school board campaign, Michele Bachmann and the 2000 election, Michele Bachmann and the 2002 election have been nominated for deletion at this link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI. The information was moved from the main article solely because of KB size concerns and is well sourced. Your imput on this matter would be appreciated.--Wowaconia 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You jumped the gun on that Waconia, it's best to simply move excessive information into a /draft/ page off the main for example Michele Bachmann/drafts. So that one day later it can be revived or integrated. Some of those spinoff pages are well sourced sure, but they are not notable in the scope of the biography of Michele Bachmann. I'm sure small town elections might be fabulous newsworthy items but they deserve a short mention at best. .:davumaya:. 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:I think it would be a mistake to remove part of a collection of sourced facts and materials from this Wiki entry on Michele Bachmann. Here’s why:

1) It represents the work of motivated contributors. It sends the wrong message to contributors to remove their work simply because of length/functionality conditions.

2) I understand the Wiki concerns about keeping the length of the article under control so that it remains functional as a reference work. What I do not understand is why editors want to give weight to the fact that this entry on a member of Congress is longer than entries on other Congressmen. I don’t see why that even enters into the discussion, if the facts presented are pertinent and sourced. It may be that more people are volunteering to produce, edit, and police this entry, compared to other entries on congressmen. The fact that that produces *more* sourced material on a politician than is usual—is not “a bad thing,” in my view. Wikipedia’s main advantage over traditional reference works is that “column space” is not the scarce resource that it is in print. If there is extraordinary interest in the subject of an entry (as is the case here) then it is not surprising that the entry on that subject will surpass the ordinary length.

My wish is not that this entry were shorter and less detailed; it is that the other entries on congresspeople were longer and more detailed. Here you have a situation where people are willing to volunteer hours of free time to surpass the standard for sourced political biography that serves the interests of the voters and press researchers—and people are arguing that that should be cut down, because no one else has done such a detailed and well-sourced job? That’s wrong, that’s deeply wrong. There is an existing solution to the length problem, which I will cite below.

3) Removing material from this Wiki entry would be wrong, because it is almost certainly true that this Wiki entry, such as it is, is currently the best and most exhaustive extant political biography of this controversial political figure. That is true, despite any shortcomings in style or the entry’s organization. To edit it down by cutting sourced material out would be like taking a hatchet to the standard book on some subject. There is no newspaper article on Bachmann, no magazine profile, no book on her career--no work currently available that is as exhaustive, detailed and well-documented as this Wiki entry. Did you know that? So this is an example of something that Wiki has done *well,* within its own editing parameters—an original work of research by citizen contributors and editors. We shouldn’t be discussing whether to maim it or not, “because it’s too long.”

One example of what I mean: this entry presents a collection of source facts about “Bachmann’s entry into politics.” All of the facts in that material are available separately—a motivated researcher could find each of the facts if they weren’t already presented here. But why eliminate them from the entry, if they *are* already here, important to understanding the rise of this politician, and gathered together in one spot by volunteer researchers?

It may be argued that some of these particular facts are “relatively less unimportant” because they concern the goings-on in small town elections. But since when have the goings-on in small town elections been unimportant in the context of a political biography of a national political figure? You can read any biography of an American political figure and find that an author will devote pages of research to the beginnings of a political career. An editor does readers, voters, journalists, and researchers a great disservice when that editor argues for removal of documented facts from this entry—simply because those facts seem relatively unimportant to that editor at the time.

More people will read the Wikipedia article on Bachmann, than would buy a print biography on Bachmann. More people will learn more factual information about Bachmann from this Wiki article, than from Minnesota newspapers and broadcasting. For those reasons alone, it’s important to keep the standards and content for this entry as high as they have been.

And there’s another reason that the “small town politics” stuff is important to retain. If you read the entire entry on Bachmann, you will probably get the impression that this is a politician who rose from small town beginnings to the United States Congress with the aid of a national, right wing evangelical political movement. That is in fact what happened, beginning in the small town of Stillwater, Minnesota. Look at the dates, the media in which Bachmann presented her message, the political figures and groups that lent their influence in these small town elections, from outside Minnesota. If you start trimming those facts out of the body of the entry, a reader cannot conclude that Bachmann is the political protégé of political figures who do not reside in her state, constituency, district or community.

The problem not yet addressed here is that this Wiki entry is only going to get longer. It is highly likely that this politician will be re-elected in her Republican leaning district this year; that’s what the analysis from Congressional Quaterly predicts, anyway. So as her career continues, new facts appended to the article can only make it longer, and the “length” consideration will continue to be a problem.

Here’s a proposed solution:

First and foremost, don’t delete or remove any sourced material from the article. That would be like deleting material from an historical archive merely because of space considerations.

Instead editors should continue to create additional Wiki pages as sub-heads to the main entry, and post descriptive links to those sub-heads at the main entry. Readers seeking a broad outline of Bachmann’s career and political stands will get these from the main entry; readers seeking the details will get them through easily accessible and easily located sub-head links to separate Wiki entries on the details.

If an editor simply removes or deletes the documented research from this entry—without directing a reader or researcher to another Wiki page where it may found in all its original detail—that editor is, in my opinion, committing an act of academic vandalism. Because that editor would be removing or hiding a valuable collection of archival and historical material, destroying the original “gathering work” of contributors, and thus obstructing the public’s access to it.BillPrendergast (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read my paragraph carefully once over before you reply so that you do not end up having to type a page of response. Instead of making "spin-off" pages, I suggested to Waconia that we create a /drafts/ subpage in which material can slowly be re-added back overtime in a coherent sense. I don't think you understand there is no such thing as "removal" of information in Wikipedia. All is catalogued. And there is no such thing as destroying the original gathering work of contributors. In Wikipedia, if the information is unsourced or without a reliable source, fails WP:Notability and cannot be WP:Verifiable, it can be removed at will with no regard to the "gathering work" as you speak of. You are very welcome to copy all the material here and redistribute it on your own website or another Wiki-website, as all Wiki content has a free license. However I think you do not have the entire idea of how Wikipedia is run in terms of how articles or specifically WP:Biography articles should be regarded. .:davumaya:. 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Davumaya—I did read your paragraph before I typed up a page of response. At your suggestion I read it again--carefully--before typing up this response.

Let’s dispose of this, first. You wrote: “You are very welcome to copy all the material here and redistribute it on your own website or another Wiki-website, as all Wiki content has a free license.” Yes, I know that. But the reason that other contributors and I researched content for this article is that we wanted it to appear here, on Wikipedia, so that users of Wikipedia would get sourced and valuable information on this subject. What we are discussing is what should appear here, in the main entry, easily available to the casual user looking for pertinent factual information about the subject.

You also wrote: “I don't think you understand there is no such thing as "removal" of information in Wikipedia. All is catalogued.” I do understand that, but again: what we are discussing is what should appear in the main entry, not “what should be catalogued.” Removing factual information from an entry is: removal. User attempting to find information on the entry are not likely to consult the “back catalogue” of preserved information; they’re going to consult the main entry.

You also wrote: “In Wikipedia, if the information is unsourced or without a reliable source, fails WP:Notability and cannot be WP:Verifiable, it can be removed at will with no regard to the "gathering work" as you speak of.” I don’t know why you pointed that out, because I’m not arguing for preservation of “unsourced/unrealiably sourced” information in this Wiki entry or any other Wiki entry. The material which we are discussing is, almost without exception, reliably sourced by Wiki standards.

My objections to the removal of sourced material from the main entry remain, and I don’t think your answer even addresses those objections. I can see no reason to remove factual material from the present entry (and relegate it to a “drafts” page) until a better version of the entry is created and submitted. Doing so, in my opinion, would represent a kind of academic vandalism; a de facto suppression of valuable factual information under the guise of “making things more coherent” or “style guidelines.” To my mind, when you balance “accuracy,” “verifiability,” “ease of reader access to information” against “coherence of article style” and “length”—the former concerns outweigh the latter, and by quite a bit. Your suggestion about relegating fact-checked portions of the entry to “drafts” is not a good suggestion, because it would make it harder, not easier, for casual Wiki users to find factual information about the subject of the entry. And that, in my opinion, subverts the purpose of the Wiki project.

Note that I am not arguing that concerns about length and style and standards and coherence are irrelevant, or count for nothing. I am pointing out that your suggestion (sending it off to drafts) doesn’t *resolve* those concerns, and at the same time subverts the Wiki purpose of getting reliable factual information to the public.

So I now have two suggestions. My first suggestion is that you leave the entry in basically the form that it is now until you or some other person has redrafted the entry to make it better—more “coherent,” as you would have it. I don’t see any good reason to move credibly sourced, pertinent, factual information into a “drafts” folder before any real attempt has been made to address your concerns. I do not see why sourced factual material should be removed from the main entry and “slowly be re-added back over time”—a decision to do that, in my opinion, is decision to do a disservice to readers, voters, and researcher looking for facts in an election year. You know as well as I do that if you or anyone else has a better draft—an entire draft or a re-drafts of proposed sections—you’re free to submit it at any time. Why make readers wait on the established facts that have already been produced for the entry, until you or some other person creates a draft that satisfies “length” concerns? Why not put your “drafts” of a newer, “more coherent” entry on the “drafts” page, instead of taking removing valuable information from the existing entry? Until you or someone else actually comes up with a better version that preserves all the important material, I oppose the removal of the existing version from the main entry, because this would make the information in the existing version less accessible and harder to find for the casual user. Surely that’s not the goal of Wikipedia.

The second suggestion is the one I made before: about subheadings with links that lead to other pages. An example of my second suggestion already appears in the body of this Wiki entry. If look at the section of the article entitled “2006 campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives”, you will see a link below labeled “Minnesota 6th Congressional District Election, 2006.” A similar subheading/linking procedure could be used to direct readers and researchers to the more detailed information on a particular area. Is that an option to address the “length” concerns, in your opinion?66.41.147.130 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Forgot to sign in. BillPrendergast (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your last two paragraphs, my former argument stands about removing information that is deemed irrelevant--I'll add, even if it's reliably sourced. In regards to you earlier litany of paragraphs that needlessly address specific points of my response for what value to this discussion I do not know, it's clear you have some kind of WP:Conflict of interest. You state we wanted it to appear here who is the big we and what is the agenda you are pushing? This is not a democracy or an academic forum. As I see the article is an inflated biography that does not accomplish much for the reader or the subject. As such it could use a speedy trimming of content. It will be up to the other we's to determine what should stay or not, at this time I am not ready to do any of this. .:davumaya:. 07:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
davumaya--your former argument stands--about removing information that is deemed irrelevant--because no one here is challenging that argument. Try removing items that *you* deem irrelevant--there is nothing to prevent you--and editors who deem them relevant will put them back. I don't see the point in you spending your time doing that, but it is an alternative to deletion or removal of valuable information to a "drafts" page. If you do try it, I beg you to bear in mind that a source fact that may seem "irrelevant" to you as an editor may seem very relevant and important to a Minnesota voter, a Minnesota student, a Minnesota teacher or researcher, a Bachmann constituent, critic, or supporter--many, many present and future readers will suffer if you or another editor delete sourced information because it seems irrelevant to *you.* There is no requirement that I know of that all the Wiki articles about Congresspeople be written with the same emphasis on the same types of information. And local constituents and Minnesotans may have more interest this this Congressman than other constituents have about theirs--hence the chronic interest in devoting so much time to the collection of information and revision for accuracy in this entry, and keeping it current.

Davumaya asked me: we wanted it to appear here who is the big we and what is the agenda you are pushing?" --"We" is every single person who has contributed to and revised this entry since it was first put up, years ago. But I don't know who the "big" we is--to the best of my knowledge, I don't know personally any of the other persons who have contributed and revised this article over the past few years. I know one person who signed her real name on the talk page, as I did here and have always done. She and I are contributors to an anti-Bachmann blog in Minnesota. But most of this article was done by dozens of other Wiki editors and contributors on this entry; I have no idea who they are or what their agenda is. I have no idea why they are so interested in this political figure. "We" do not hold meetings, "we" do not know each other, some of the editors are undoubtedly Bachmann supporters and Bachmann critics. But because we have devoted all this time over the years to this entry: it's clear that all of "us" want the documented, accurate and factual information that survive Wiki standards for objectivity to appear in the entry, on the main page, and that "we" don't want it removed. I hope that is clear; the reason that people bother to research and write material that passes Wiki standards, it that they want it to appear on Wikipedia--not some other web page, some other "place" that is not consulted by so many readers. That is the "agenda" that "we," all the contributors to and editors of the article, are "pushing."

You tell me that: "This is not a democracy or an academic forum." No, but it's not a place that removes *relevant, sourced* information from the encyclopedia in the interests of "saving space" or "coherence." The project starts with an invitation to ANYONE to write or edit--the project is about gathering and making available important, accurate and relevant information FIRST, "style guidelines" SECOND. As for objectivity and point of view concerns, I respectfully suggest that objectivity and point of view are compromised if an objective editor waits until the summer before an election to decide that the format of a longstanding article on a politician doesn't meet Wiki standards.

You wrote: "As I see the article is an inflated biography that does not accomplish much for the reader or the subject." You should present your opinion, but in this case your opinion is wrong. There are problems with "length" and "coherent style", as you pointed out, but these are offset by the very valuable factual information about this political figure's beliefs, agenda, life, voting record, actions. If were to check for other existing biographies on this person, you would find that none is so complete or informative--or accurate--as this one right here, for all its style flaws. That is why you get the litany of paragraphs from me on leaving the information gathered together here the way it is, where it is, until someone actually devotes the time to do a better draft.BillPrendergast (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "GOP-09-07-06" :
    • {{cite web | title =Michele Bachmann for Congress | publisher =Republican National Committee |date=[[September 7]], [[2006]] | url =http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6549 | accessdate =2006-11-10}}
    • {{cite web | title =Michele Bachmann for Congress | publisher =Republican National Committee |date=[[September 7]], [[2006]] | url =http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6549}} Retrieved on [[November 10]], [[2006]]
  • "B4C" :
    • {{cite web | title =About Michele Bachmann | publisher =Bachmann for Congress (2006)| url =http://www.michelebachmann.com/article.asp?ARTICLEID=72}} Retrieved on [[November 12]], [[2006]]
    • {{cite web | title =About Michele Bachmann | publisher =Bachmann for Congress | url =http://www.michelebachmann.com/article.asp?ARTICLEID=72&PRINTABLE=TRUE}} Retrieved on [[November 12]], [[2006]]

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism links in "See Also" section

I'm not a Bachmann supporter by any means (I'm from Minnesota and I can honestly say she is one of my LEAST favorite MN politicians). Nevertheless, I think including her in Category: McCarthyism and including three McCarthy-related topics in the "See Also" section smells like POV-pushing.

There are other individuals and groups that engage in (what I believe to be) McCarthyist tactics, such as Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz, but it would be inappropriate to maintain links to McCarthy from the "See Also" sections of those articles, just because I believe they use McCarthyist tactics. The same should apply to Bachmann no matter how much I or you dislike her... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I also dislike her and also think that the links are probably inappropriate. The exception would be if charges of McCarthyism have been a significant issue, or if she had some other tie to Joe McCarthy, in which case a brief mention in the text would be better than an unexplained "See also" link. I'm removing the category and the dubious links, but anyone who can provide some kind of support for them should present the information here. JamesMLane t c 03:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like this page is protecting her from the consequences of her public statements....making it harder, not easier for the public to discover why she is newsworthy and how she has caused the attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.219.100 (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that would be incorrect. The term Neo-McCarthy is not a factually based term, it is conjecture.

Would it be appropriate to mention this or this? JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. (Personally I think all that's needed is a link to the Wonkette writeup but as a well-behaved editor I know that's a no-no too.) Tama1988 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Using obvious biased sources, such as censurebachmann.com, ActBlue (identified as Democrat), and even a "nuanced site" like Wonkette, would throw up red flags and get this entry locked with an NPOV sign. Therefore, the answer would be No. Kagurae (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to discuss this issue under a subheading of "Allegations of McCarthyism". rmosler (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The links on this article to McCarthyism are very justified. She is on the public record stating that she identifies with the beliefs of Joe McCarthy in questioning the patriotism of fellow Congresspersons for simple political benefits.

Michele Bachmann is Joe McCarthy's long-lost son in drag!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.222.117 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not involved and don't intend to be. But the length of the section on her comments about investigating congress is absurd. POV, recentism, it's got it all, plus the scurillous (sp?) mccarthy references. The whole bit should be five sentences, tops.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bailout Bill

Wasn't she one of the major faces of the opposition to the bailout bill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.215.130 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Bachmann starts new Witch Hunt

I think a section should be added about how Bachmann is beginning the Neo-McCarthy movement in America by saying that Americans (Democrats in particular) are not patriotic.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/17/bachmann-anti-american/#comment-5291196

That would be violating the neutrality of this article, and any thought of doing such a thing would be excised almost immediately as a violation of WP:POV. Think Progress is also not an unbiased source, and to use them would violate the provisions of WP:POV. Thirdly, you are using a reference to a comment, which is also a violation of WP:POV. So, I think the answer on this is "No, there will not be a section in relation to the posted link." The idea about this being a Neo-McCarthy movement is an opinion, not a fact, and you should know better than that. Kagurae (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant and/or POV description of nominee Jimmy Carter

In 1976, Michele and her then boyfriend supported the Presidential bid of Jimmy Carter. I deleted a description of him taken from an Encyclopedia: he "made much of being a born-again Christian". Nowhere in this section of the WP article -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- is Michele Bachmann herself described as being a born again, and indeed she is not, she belongs rather to this traditional Lutheran sect, founded 1850. In this section, there *is* a very relevant point made: nominee Jimmy Carter, Michele, and her boyfriend all considered abortion immoral. The other description of Carter in a biography of Michele Bachmann is irrelevant and/or POV. It would be POV if it were intended to refute some claim about Carter's principles or actions. Hurmata (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bachmann's comment denounced as "nonsense" by Colin Powell

Her comment was denounced by Colin Powell as "nonsense" in an October 19, 2008 interview. Powell said: “This business of... a congressman (sic) from Minnesota who’s going around saying, ‘Let’s examine all congressmen to see who’s pro-America and who’s not pro-America. We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity.”

Powell calls Bachmann statements ‘nonsense’ - St. Cloud Times, MN Re: Congresswoman Bachmann's proposal, Against the Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs Act (correct actual name, please). Bachmann's proposal asks for a ban on a bill written to remove all standard incandescent light bulbs by (year) in favor of fluorescent bulbs. She says that fluorescent bulbs 'add mercury pollution' to the air. This is false as stated (find article describing properties of fluorescent bulbs); while it is true that when BROKEN these bulbs emit mercury and it is advised that people in the room leave it immediately and air the room out, I have seen nothing which states that, just by burning them, mercury is emitted into the air. While Bachmann may have a point that Congress sometimes goes too far in 'intruding' into people's lives more than is necessary (I would add as unnecessarily 'intrusive', as many have done, the mandate to ban television reception which does not conform to High Definition reception; this has already rendered some people's televisions unusable or problematic)), her using less-than-accurate information about fluorescent bulbs causing 'mercury pollution' (unless they are broken) brings up the possibility of cui bono, where this bill is concerned; e.g. facts: GE makes bulbs/ GE has come out against mandating fluorescent bulbs (which last far longer than incandescent bulbs)/ therefore, is GE donating to Bachmann's campaign? The answer to this would be a helpful one to put in Wikipedia where this bill is concerned. (Information100 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/NEWS01/110190067/1009

Palinpalling (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but whether she is correct or not, it doesn't matter; Wikipedia is here only to report what she has said on the matter. If GE had donated to her campaign and this was reported in a reliable third party source, we could print it, but otherwise it's original research.--Gloriamarie (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Coburn School of Law?

There is something odd about the Coburn School of Law. A Google search brings up very little if anything, there is no official web site for such a school it seems, even under the Oral Roberts University site at oru.edu. There is also no Wikipedia article on the school, and even the ORU article's only mention of Coburn is in reference to Bachmann. Anyone know anything else about this school? -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more information [8]: "The ABA yanked Coburn’s accreditation in 1981 over its Christian litmus tests for students and faculty but later reinstated it. However, the law school closed in 1986 and donated its library to Pat Robertson’s Regent University in Virginia. Regent then started its own law school but didn’t receive ABA accreditation until 1996." -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this Congresswoman's total lack of any form of recognized college-level-or-above education is highly relevant to anyone researching her background. None of her educational institutions are recognized as having validated programs on the part of any impartial panels. That's a highly relevant fact about her background that needs to be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.18.154 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has been gutted by numerous deletes

From her "Personal History" section to her election results, alot of information has been deleted Qwerspam (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC) R

Deletion per se isn't problematic. I just finished deleting several passages from the article, mostly for being un-encyclopedic or, in some cases, pushing into noticeable POV. Without reviewing the specific edits you are citing, it's hard to know whether they constitute "gutting", or were merely improvements in an article that, even now, seems fairly long, with an editorial balance that sometimes seems to be flirting with a pro-Bachmann POV that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- John Callender (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

In the sub paragraph "Partial retraction", Bachmann is quoted as saying "That's why your listeners need to know.". Actually a "what" instead of the "why" would make more sense to me, can it be that this is a typo or did she say "why"? --87.155.225.101 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Anderson

Took out the link because it went to the wrong Bob Anderson. Perhaps someone who knows how can make a proper link to a stub aricle or whatever it's called. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.27.57 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Michelle has five children and has taken in more than a dozen foster children. I remember reading about her work among disadvantaged children before in this article, but now I can't find any mention of it. Was it deleted, and if so, why? Shouldn't it be under "Personal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.150.14 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Awards

How does the "Awards" section add anything to validity of this page? There are hundreds of opinion surveys that bloggers/papers conduct that could be listed here in this section. Looks like a hit job, plain and simple. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.180.210 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On the First African-American Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC)

Where should Ms. Bachmann's now infamous comment -- "Michael Steele, you be da man! You be da man!" -- be inserted? [9] Austinmayor (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it relevant to the article?

I think its relevant because it displays context. She is clearly mimicking an urban or african-american colloquialism as a gesture of praise...

In the new era of Obama...I, like any other, would believe its appropriate to point this face out...but if you want to "white-wash" it...forget it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiznaw (talk • contribs) 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

Where to begin.

The sourcing on this article is atrocious. Too many of the sources, nearly 1/3rd cannot be checked for verification of context, and considering some of the more inflammatory statements derived from them about the subject they need to be. Some of the sources fail to meet the criteria for sourcing n WP:BLP. Flickr, Wonkette, and censurebauchman.com are not RS’s under any corcumastance, and a good deal of the “factual” (a term I use loosely) information comes from opinion pieces, also another no no. There is also undue weight placed on some aspects of Bachmans voting record. Is it really all that notable that she voted against the 2006 Congress' "100 hour plan"?

Short of gutting the article, and begging from square one, I am not sure what else can be done to salvage the articles content in its current form.

Hopefully the individuals who put this much time into the article can step forward and clean it up. I will provide them with no more than a week to do so. Otherwise I will have little reoccurs other than to gut it and rewrite it from scratch. CENSEI (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please point out some specifics so editors can work on it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are a lot of specifics ... too many to mention, that’s I proposed the rewrite. The following paragraph is symptomatic of issues in the entire article"

On February 10, 2007, during an interview with St. Cloud Times reporter Lawrence Schumacher, Bachmann claimed to know of a plan, already worked out with a line drawn on the map, for the partition of Iraq in which Iran will control half of the country and set it up as a “a terrorist safe haven zone” and a staging area for attacks around the Middle East and on the United States, to be called “the Iraq State of Islam, something like that”.[43] On February 23, Bachmann issued a statement that said that she was "sorry if my words have been misconstrued." In the statement, Bachmann, who declined to be interviewed about what she said on February 10, said “It is difficult to ascertain Iran’s intentions towards Iraq.”[44]

This entire section relies on one newspaper blog entry from and opinion columnist. This is not a WP:RS, and the article is rife with examples like this.
Other examples in the dreaded "controversy" section include a source indicating who thinks Bachmann's opinions on global warming are controversial and why, The "Calling for the investigation of members of Congress" section is nearly 25% of the article and is and unduly weight the article towards one single, and in retrospect, an insignificant event. CENSEI (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Strike it out of the article then. I just did with some of the education fluffing. TharsHammar (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thats a great way to start an edit war, take it from me. Evaluate the material, and most importantly the sources and condens what seems to be too long and get rid of what cannot be reasonably supported. CENSEI (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because it can be supported does not mean it should be in the article. Most of the material is puffery and is overly detailed. TharsHammar (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The "blog" is a news (paper) blog of StarTribune.com which can be seen as a RS at least when it comes to quotes. The paragraph in question seems to be based on those [her own] quotes.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Going over parts of the article I think some material would be fine if written in a NPOV manner. Now, I know this is very general spoken but rewriting sections step by step would be a good start IMO.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with CENSEI, this article reads like a total puff piece for Bachmann. We need to take a chainsaw to this article and remove all the fluff and get down to the meat of it. The education part should probably be chopped to 1 to 2 sentences to sum it up. TharsHammar (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you seriously think this is a puff piece on Bachmann? CENSEI (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
100% reads like a puff piece. Reads like something her press office would pump out to throw a bone to the Christian right. TharsHammar (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow .... seriously, you need to freshen up on policy and re-read this article. CENSEI (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Repeating my comment above asking CENSEI to "Please point out some specifics so editors can work on it." Any comments based on personal feelings and not the article are quite frankly nothing else than useless and a waste of time.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Striking part of comment since the editor replied above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that her insane rantings about a "global currency" have not been discussed here yet.96.255.146.191 (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to collapse the Involvement in Education and MN state politics section into 1 section with about 1/3-1/4th the material that is currently in there. TharsHammar (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but merge content and dont just delete. Collapse 110th section into a paragraph or two, Condense "2006 campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives" as there is a parent article about it, and delete/merge controversies as they are frowned upon in gerneal and lack high quality sources secondly. CENSEI (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There was previously an article dedicated to controversies and criticisms, but it was deleted. TharsHammar (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As well it should have been, POV Forks tend to be the breeding grounds of bad content. CENSEI (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they do. I was pointing it out, sort of as a FYI because it looks like a lot of the information in this article was lifted from here or the other way around. I'm off for the night but will take a look again in the morning here and give my suggested version of the material I think is puffing and fluffing Michelle. TharsHammar (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
See you tomorrow then. CENSEI (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't have time this morning, but now I got down to it and trimmed the early career part to fit in line with the relative notability and importance of those minor events. Here is the collective diff. [10]TharsHammar (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that just deleting whole parts is a bad idea. Merging and rewrite is the best approach (which includes finding better RS's). "Blanking" in either direction won't create a stable "stronghold".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed some categories and recent non notable stuff, but I agree that this article could use a full rewrite rather than just hacking away sections. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)ps, under the 2006 campaign, there is a huge block quote from her talk at the LWCC and reaction, does that need to be so long? --Tom (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Triming of "material"

User TharsHammar just trimed alot of material. I fully support this. Could you please do the same for some of the other sections as well? TIA --Tom (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I had made an agreement with CENSEI that I would focus on trimming the early career and he would work on trimming the latter stuff. I agree that this article needs to be chopped down, then rebuilt as needed. I would like to know what the plan is for the trimming of the 110th congress material before I go at it, as a start we should remove the subcategories from the box. TharsHammar (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am giving up for now aftr reading the stuff about the Pope being the anti christ :) Good luck. --Tom (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I have grouped some of the controversial stuff together as an interm step. This material can either be broken off into another article, or it can be further trimmed or deleted. More work needed. TharsHammar (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Slowly working through the 110th Congress stuff, starting at the bottom up and only half way done. I'm done for now. Others please continue trimming. TharsHammar (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Much better TharsHammar, but still needs more "work", keep going :). I removed some categories and blog stuff from last week that was reverted as "vandalism" which is not helpful. --Tom (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to make this article more neutral and readable we should create an article on controversies or public appearances, or something along those lines to split of the contentious material from the main article. We trim the material here down into 1 or 2 sentences with a redirect to the separate article. Once all that material is off in a separate article it can then be massaged in accordance with NPOV and BLP in that article. We will just keep running into these problems on this article every time Michelle says something controversial if we do not separate this now. TharsHammar (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that. I know that those sub articles can be a really magnet for adding every "detail" under the sun and can be very problematic, and most editors here do not approve of them I believe, ect, but it sure helps to keep the "main" bio manageabled, imho. I actually don't go near controversial sub articles, since I consider them containment sites for toxic material :) Anyways, the amount of weight given to the controveries right now seems undue. Can't this "stuff" be covered more susinctly? --Tom (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "G.R. Anderson, Jr., "Somebody Say Oh Lord! Michele Bachmann heads an all-star cast of GOP Christian flat-earthers in the Sixth District", February 23, 2005. City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1264. Minneapolis, MN. Anderson is Senior Editor and public affairs columnist for the City Pages".
  2. ^ Michael J. Chapman and Senator Michele Bachmann, “How New U.S. Policy Embraces A State-Planned Economy,” Maple River Education Coalition. Copyright 2001 Michael J. Chapman and Senator Michele Bachmann; Permission granted to copy and distribute. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  3. ^ "Bachmann endorsement protested".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michele_Bachmann/Archive_1&oldid=1083525520"