Talk:Michele Bachmann/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Gay step-sister

I restored what seemed like a well-referenced and relevant sentence about the subject's gay step-sister. This seems relevant to her notability and sourced to a reliable source. What do others think? --John (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I didn't understand what you mean by "relevant to her notability". Can you rephrase it?
Second, my point is that we don't have to include every gossip we find in secondary sources. Of course we have to stay within the sources, but we don't have to include every irrelevant thing in the sources. If some gossip tabloid states that Nancy Pelosy's nephew betrayed his girlfriend, do we have to include it?
I absolutely can't even begin to imagine Encyclopedia Britannica including this kind of puerile gossip, even if they had the space. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
My view is the Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not a gossip tabloid. Including the sexual proclivity of the step-sister of the subject is simply bizarre. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As it stands, I don't think it is relevant to the article. The statement is provided with no context whatsoever and, as such, one could just as well have said that her step-sister's favorite color is orange (if there was a citation for that). Encyclopedic information needs to be presented in a way that adds to the reader's knowledge of the subject and, if the sexual orientation of a step-sister is relevant, it needs to be explained why. Doing this without conducting original research might be difficult, because a reference (for example a newspaper) is not necessarily encyclopedic and can write pretty much whatever they like about a subject, including all manner of trivia and gossip. That isn't the case with a serious encyclopedia, where information should be structured and purposeful. My guess is that the reason the gay step-sister is mentioned is that there is an implication that this has an impact/consequence in relation to Bachmann's political position on gay marriage. I think, however, that it would be very hard for an editor to actually state that in the article without transgressing either NPOV or OR policy. As a stand alone statement, it is not relevant to the article and should go. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
And is this a gossip tabloid about Bachmann's nephew betraying his girlfriend, JP? Or is it Salon, the Daily Mail, the Atlantic Wire, New York Magazine, and others talking about a sister's sexual orientation and its relevance to Bachmann's campaign against gay people? Don't make these silly kinds of comments, and please cease immediately with this dismissal of the existence of gay people as "puerile gossip." WPP, I thought that since Arzel was already censoring the material claiming that one sentence was "undue," writing more would be even worse, but I could be wrong, and context would definitely be useful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not necessary to assume a bad faith motivation for starting this discussion. Rather than assume that this is censorship, one could also argue the exact opposite. Sexual orientation is, of itself, a non-issue. So if the article doesn't explain why someone being gay is noteworthy, then it is just as relevant as talking about the step-sibling's pets, favorite food or football team. While the inclusion of the fact, without any context may not breach WP:UNDUE - it's just useless information that has nothing at all to do with MB. If context can be added without breaching OR, NPOV or UNDUE policy guidelines, then great...but I think it will be a real challenge for any editor to weave in that context in a meaningful way. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
First, I will not even respond about "campaign against gay people." Please stop trying to polemicize Wikipedia. Second, I am not saying that the existence of the step-sister is gossip; I am saying that telling readers she enjoys same-sex sexual activity is gossip. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
JP, you're only digging yourself deeper into that hole with every comment you make. WPP, do you have a draft wording in mind? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I just hope one day you will realize that not everything is political intrigue, and that not every person who disagrees with you has a "far-right agenda". Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, let me return to the point and repeat that Encyclopedia Britannica would never include this kind of gossip, even if space is not an issue.
Second, in this Wikipedia article, even being onlline space is an issue. This article is humongous (27 pages), and this makes the inclusion of gossip even less advisable. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The New York Times doesn't report it as gossip. The quote is: "Her passion proved too much for her stepsister, Helen LaFave, who is openly gay and turned up for a hearing on the bill. “She saw us — you could see the shock on her face,” said Linda Cielinski, another stepsister who was there. “I don’t think she has any idea how badly she’s hurt our side of the family, and I don’t think she cares.”" --John (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This is gossip used as political intrigue; that many media organizations that hate MIchele's positions are running this does not make it encyclopedic. Encyclopedia Britannica would never run this. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of how it is presented, the larger problem is that only one person of her extended family was mentioned. Why was that one person mentioned? Because she is gay. From what I have seen on other BLP's is that only immediate family members are mentioned unless they are related to a otherwise notable person. LaFave has no notability of her own (notablity is not inherited). It is no coincidence of why this kind of material is being put into the article. Arzel (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is that such a problem? Please bring any other reliably sourced material (the NYT is an excellent source) and you can freely add it to the article. If the NYT sees fit to report it, I do not see why we cannot. --John (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If it were only the NYT I'd support removing it, since that's basically a passing mention, but other reliable news sources have had entire articles on LaFave. But the point you're making to Arzel is basically sound - that NOTINHERITED is a policy that governs us, not a policy that we use to second-guess reliable sources when they cover family members of a notable person. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, its ground hog day all over. This is like the Palin supports rape stuff. Ok, Bachman hates gays, but look, her step sister is gay, oh no. The idea that we can put whatever the NYT writes in an article is stupid. To have a stand alone sentence that her stepsister is openly gay is beyond ridiculous. This is why wikipedia is considered a joke. It will be nice when the campaign is over and then 20 editors will suddenly arrive and restore sanity to this article, until then, the agenda pushing editors will run wild...have fun folks...--Threeafterthree (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for consensus debate

Well...let's see if we can get some consensus:

  • Remove the reference to the sexual orientation of the step-sister unless some serious context is provided that makes it relevant to the subject of the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove/Rewrite - The context is that Bachman has made "anti" gay comments, so the sexual orientation of family members who comment could be relevant if, big if, their commentary is worthy of inclusion, has reached the level of coverage that warrants it. Again, a stand alone sentence about a step sister being gay, is not the way to go, imho, thats all. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
maybe...The New York Times quoted Bachmann's stepsister Linda Cielinski as saying “She saw us(Cielinski and another stepsister, Helen LaFave, who is openly gay) — you could see the shock on her face, I don’t think she has any idea how badly she’s hurt our side of the family, and I don’t think she cares.”....--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove As an outside editor, all I can say is that unless a broad base of sources are reporting on the sexual orientation (and name) of her step-sister, those details should be removed per WP:UNDUE, and various WP:BLP policies like WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPNAME, WP:NPF, WP:BLPGOSSIP etc. aprock (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove As per WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. As to whether or not more than one paper picked it up, see WP:OTTO. This is a BLP on an encyclopedia people, not a place for political debate or personal commentary. SeanNovack (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove, not notable and not relevant and not providing any insight. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove, step sister is not notable by herself and the edit adds nothing relevant to the biography IMO. 72Dino (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove. Wikipedia is not Gossip Central. In fact, remove also the sentence "The New York Times quoted another stepsister Linda Cielinski as saying “She saw us — you could see the shock on her face, I don’t think she has any idea how badly she’s hurt our side of the family, and I don’t think she cares”. If a symmetric thing happened with the Nancy Pelosi article, I would support removal too. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the Rachel Maddow show. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Include, it's well-sourced and directly relevant to the reason for Bachmann's notability; that is, directly relevant to her status as a public figure and candidate for national office. The rest of you are just Wikilawyering, and frankly, of those voting to remove, only Three is making any effort towards a real consensus, which is not the same thing as attempting to secure a majority vote in support of one's own unyielding position. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
??? That's a bit harsh! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Not really. I'd say it's pretty fair. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A bit harsh that you are implying that I, and other editors, have an agenda. I don't. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Factchecker, looks like you need to read WP:AGF. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Currently AGF'ing really, really hard. Now what about WP:CONSENSUS? Saying "you need to AGF" is not a way to end a substantive discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You and I have had disagreements in the past, but this isn't personal. When it starts getting difficult to assume good faith and emotions are running that high, a short break might do some good. It has for me in the past. SeanNovack (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have misread my comment; try again. No emotion on my part involved and no need to take a break. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form. The Daily Mail (not exactly a liberal bastion), National Journal, Atlantic, New York Magazine, and Salon have all run articles specifically on her, and she's also discussed in other articles on Bachmann's campaign. We can't pretend that she doesn't exist and that reliable sources haven't mentioned her in connection with Bachmann's anti-gay policies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I second this. I see this as being notable and relevant to her social stance. 69.132.111.27 (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
WP is not a place to promote a political point of view. Arzel (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove WP:UNDUE The focus on one relative that happens to be gay is being done for purely political purposes and push a specific point of view. Arzel (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of ridiculous comment I was referring to as Wikilawyering above. I'm not even sure what to make of the phrasing "focus on one relative who happens to be gay". The gay person also "happens to be" Bachmann's relative and "happens to have been" personally hurt by her hyperbolic political grandstanding on homosexuality – as, apparently, have other relatives on that side of the family – which is exactly why the NY Times "happened to cover" the story. It's not some freaky accident; it's direct commentary on her political views, which are the only reason she's notable. It's painfully a non-issue that the bit is politically charged, because Bachmann is a politician with controversial views, and covering those views, as well as notable and relevant reactions to them, is emphatically within the purpose of a WP BLP. The complaint that the article itself, or editors wishing to reference it, intend to "push a specific point of view", is also quite intellectually dishonest, or else reflects a basic failure to understand WP:NPOV, which certainly does not contemplate that articles will be opinion-free, not even in BLPs and especially not when the subject is a high-profile, active politician. Rather, articles are supposed to reflect opposing views, without showing favor to any of them.
Any counterpoints to the relative's complaint by Bachmann or her supporters would, of course, be fit for inclusion as well. The fact that there's nothing one could really say in response without looking like a total monster ("Well, she shouldn't have been born into our family if she doesn't like my views on homosexuality"; "Well, she shouldn't have chosen to lead a morally abhorrent lifestyle"; etc.; etc.) is not Wikipedia's problem; it's the subject's problem for putting such outrageous views on the national table for discussion. Anyway, I just wanted to flag that these claims of concern for "BLP policy" and "NPOV" are not actually grounded in policy, but simply reflect an inappropriate inclination to suppress unfavorable commentary on the subject of the article – an approach which is, in fact, specifically prohibited by both BLP and NPOV. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A BLP is not a place to talk about the hurt feelings of the subject's relatives. And this talk page is not a WP:FORUM. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Utter bullshit straw-man. A BLP is absolutely the place to talk about such hurt feelings when those hurt feelings are well-sourced and relevant to the subject's notability. Your WP:FORUM comment is utterly misplaced and irrelevant, and you ought to strike it out; my entire comment above was about the article and how to properly abide by policy while writing and editing it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
How are they in any way relevant and important? A public figure's family is not notable unless they are notable in their own right. In this case, it's one quote from one article that means nothing to the encyclopedia. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Flat wrong. Numerous stories in reliable sources have covered the family-member-alienation bit. The relevance, meanwhile, has already been explained numerous times throughout this page. Those explanations either persuade you, or they don't, and there's no need for anyone to keep repeating them. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Make your point and let the consensus debate run its course. WP:BLUDGEON refers. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Responding to meritless claims and accusations of policy breach is not what WP:BLUDGEON refers to, even if it takes the form of comments appearing amidst a straw poll. Please note that I have not persisted in reverting or inserting anything on this subject; I said my peace several days ago and have subsequently only responded where someone was making an accusation of bad faith or other improper conduct. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I was agreeing with your comment! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies.. as you can see from my comment, I thought you were criticizing me for responding to too many comments in this section. :-\ Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is obviously significant since gay marriage opposition is one of her signature issues, and this is well sourced and widely noted. Not everything that may potentially make Bachmann look bad to someone somewhere on the planet Earth is "gossip". Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove, So I guess those who want it in just want it for the irony? It is safe to say that those who want to include it are doing to portray Bachmann as some sort of hypocrite for being anti-gay while having a gay step-sister. Truthsort (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
AGF, Brosef, and I'll note that despite voting on the subject, you haven't presented any policy justification for removal. Anyway, I highly doubt anyone wants it in for the "irony"; nor is it hypocritical in any way, since Michele herself isn't gay. Those who want it in, want it in because it's well-sourced, notable criticism that's relevant to her own notability. She's a prominent politician with deliberate, high-profile anti-gay platform; it's hardly surprising that opposing voices wind up receiving substantial coverage in the maintstream media, and little more than a coincidence that some of those voices happen to be from within her family. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:NOTNEWS; this is the kind of petty stuff that gives wikipedia a bad name. – Lionel (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No, far worse is the activist-minded 'editors' who camp these articles and keep out anything they dont like. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.185.72 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 98.92.189.102 (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?

  • Given that there has been no further discussion for a few days, I believe it is time to decide whether a consensus has been reached, based on the above discussion. Given that I initiated the consensus debate, I don't think that I am the right person to make the call. Is there anyone (independent of the debate) who wants to do this for us? Any ideas?
Based on the uncompromising and standoffish tone of the discussion, and the fact that the result was more of a "Yes or no" vote than a debate, I'd suggest running this up the flagpole at BLP/N or another noticeboard that focuses on NPOV. In my opinion, the purported policy justifications for removal, where they are offered, are conclusory and more than a bit questionable – with a couple of exceptions, e.g. the comment by you (which accurately reflected policy, IMO) and the comment by Three (which suggested a path to compromise between the opposing sides).
I don't think a straw poll among interested editors is the way forward. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

debt ceiling

For neutrality reasons, this article needs a section about B's statements on the debt ceiling and after the S&P downgrade of US debt with the consequent market troubles. 4.249.63.234 (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

School reform will lead to Holocaust

  • Bachmann in '02: School reform will lead to Holocaust.91.39.78.175 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Many reliable secondary sources state that Bachmann is careless with the facts and often makes things up but I'm not sure if there's any place in the article for it. I think we'll just have to outline her positions, give a few quotes and let the readers make their own judgements, like we do already. It is however a scientific fact that 94.3% of education reform initiatives lead to at least one holocaust. - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
We can state (and in the sub-article on Bachmann's 2012 campaign, we do) as a general fact that she has this problem, but it's totally unnecessary to catalog each and every fabrication. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not opposing the inclusion of such a statement, but I looked through the article and just couldn't find a place I thought should include it. If someone else can integrate this into the article in a neutral and elegant way then go for it. see New Yorker for one source. another from the AP and CBS news - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann's Christian credentials

At the Iowa Straw Poll somebody asked her point blank whether she's a submissive wife and she didn't give an answer. She floundered around for ten minutes saying there's mutual respect in her marriage but wouldn't answer the question. Makes you think. That's all I'm saying. Mardiste (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Was there any article-related reason to post this? Talk pages are not forums. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate reference

12 and 154 are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.20 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the tip. Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: change "intelligent design" to "creationism"

Under the heading "Education Policy", the following sentence appears:

"Bachmann supports the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes.[footnote 132]"

However, the cited source does not even use the term "intelligent design", but instead (more accurately, IMO) indicates that Bachmann supports teaching creationism in public schools, and refers to the concept using that term throughout the article. Given the substance of the article, this does not appear to be a simple mistake of terminology. Bachmann is quoted as referring, for example, to the teachings of religious professors who claim that "the Earth was created by an intelligent being – God, if you will – and that there are Scripture passages that say that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is a day, and that therefore, over time, God could have created all this." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence should be struck. The source is a newspaper article in which the report states that Bachmann advocates teaching creationism. But no direct quote from Bachmann is provided to substantiate that claim. The context here is Bachmann's sponsorship of a bill in the Minnesota legislature, a bill which is widely reported on as "requiring the teaching of creationism." But here is the actual text of the bill: "Notwithstanding any rule or law to the contrary, when science academic standards are taught that may generate controversy, including biological evolution, the curriculum must help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society. A quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science." [1] To say that the bill would have required teaching creationism in schools is to make an interpretation that goes well beyond what the bill actually says. I don't see how it is an established NPOV fact that Bachmann advocates the teaching of "creationism" in public schools. Mrhsj (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "established NPOV fact", but I would say that this could only refer to a fact that's so uncontroversial it is unlikely to be disputed and thus need not even be cited to a source per WP:RS. Things like "the earth is roughly round and revolves around the sun", or "the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima". Practically nothing that gets discussed in a politician's BLP is going to meet these conditions. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's actually the exact opposite of how we should be handling the sources. The text of the bill is a primary source, so we cannot interpret it ourselves - rather, we must go with what secondary sources, like the newspaper, say. The newspaper reports that Bachmann wishes to have creationism taught in schools, and indeed does provide a quote. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. If we have to rely on that article, I note that what the article actually says Bachmann advocates is the "discussion" of creationism. That's not the same as "teaching" creationism. (Compare "social studies class must discuss racism" and "social studies classes must teach racism.") I'd be fine with revising the sentence to "Bachmann supports the discussion of creationism in public school science classes." Mrhsj (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
A more recent report with more specific quote:
Fat&Happy (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a very selective and misleading reading of an article that clearly is discussing the prospect of teaching creationism, and uses that exact term throughout the article, more or less interchangeably with "discussion". I suppose we can leave aside the notion that any form of discussing creationism in science class, other than to say it's pseudoscience, would amount to "teaching" creationism, since even "teaching" kids that there is supposedly a scientific controversy in the first place invites them to believe that there actually is such a scientific controversy, and thereby encourages them to accept creationism at a time when they are not well-educated enough to know better.
However, please also note that although the current source would seem preferable to the other sources you cite – it's an actual local newspaper from the relevant region that gives a fairly in-depth treatment to the topic, quoting multiple relevant people (including Bachmann) at length, rather than just two short blog snippets merely quoting a single statement by Bachmann – even the sources you suggest indicate that she supports teaching intelligent design.
As Mrhsj above you notes, this was all in the context of debate over a bill Bachmann supported which was "widely reported on as 'requiring the teaching of creationism.'" The widely reported or predominant view is the one that gets the most weight, per WP:UNDUE, and we shouldn't strive to make tenuous interpretations of sources for the purpose of, or with the effect of, contradicting the predominant view. Minority views should only be cited to sources that genuinely present those minority views, and WP:FRINGE views should not be presented at all. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Please try to distinguish comments by two different editors in your responses, rather than attributing the opinions of one and the neutral addition of sources by another as being from the same person. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It would help if you'd be careful to follow the convention of indenting your comments one space further than the comment you're replying to. This makes it easier for other editors to tell where one comment ends and the next begins. I apologize if you were offended by my confusion but, please note that it was quite understandable. That said, it does not really change the substance of my comments to address them exclusively to Mrhsj. The point remains intact. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
And it would help if, before lecturing me on proper spacing technique, you noticed that my post was properly indented when posted. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have thoughts on this? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed from "intelligent design" to creationism. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war over this. If it continues we should protect the page until it can be resolved.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not quite over the change in terminology itself. Even the editors who opposed this change appear to have taken it in stride. There is a brand-new user who insists that there must be a category applied, and that the appropriate category is "Creationists". However, we don't have any source substantiating that Bachmann actually believes in Creationism, which she would have to in order to be a "Creationist". By contrast, the previous category, "intelligent design advocates", is possibly consistent with her comments in the Stillwater Gazette article, which includes the following:
"The more Bachmann examines the 'universe and the natural world,' she said, 'the more convinced I am, personally, that this world was created by an intelligent being.'"
It's somewhat debatable whether using that as a reference for including her in an "intelligent design advocates" reflects WP:SYN, since that category refers to "proponents" and as such doesn't unquestionably refer to people who actually subscribe to the viewpoint (note, she seems to stop short of unequivocally saying she does subscribe to it), but using any of the sourcing we've got as a basis for including her in a "creationists" category absolutely reflects WP:SYN. That aside, I'm not aware of any policy requiring WP articles to demonstrate a rigid internal consistency such that application of a category absolutely must match the article itself in the way it uses terminology.
This is more breath than I had hoped to waste on the subject, and meanwhile the chap who created his account today (apparently to persist in the edit war he began yesterday) cannot even be bothered to post on the talk page, much less actively solicit the opinions of other editors regarding an edit he wants to make. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Although not directly related to the wording "intelligent design" vs "creationism", I have a comment: Bachmann's knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding the number of scientists that are against evolution has been questioned by Zack Kopplin in http://www.repealcreationism.com/508/17-year-old-to-michelle-bachmann-show-me-your-nobel-laureate-scientists/ . Maybe this external link would be suitable to include in the article? As the article stands right now, her stance is not very much criticized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.131.100 (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Federal Home Loan

An article from the WaPo implied that Bachmann benifited from Federal Home Loan programs and then called for their dismantle, however the source doesn't say matter of factly that she actually did. From the source

Experts who examined the loan documents for The Washington Post say that they are confident the loan was backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

This is not proof positive that she did or even sought out Federal assistance. If we are going to include statements that try to portray her as a hypocrite we are going to need better sources that actually state positively that she did this. To imply otherwise is both a WP:BLP violation and a WP:NPOV violation. Arzel (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The recent edit from Hcobb is far better. Not sure it is notable, but it is at least balanced and neutral. Arzel (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I clarified that the WaPo article points out Bachmann isn't alone in taking advantage of federal programs she criticizes. Since the whole point of the article is to note that supposed anomaly, if the article is used at all it's only fair to include both the supposed anomaly and the observation that it's not necessarily all that anomalous. We don't just list random references of fact without giving any context or explaining their significance to the reader. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that anyone that has purchased a home knows that the borrower only deals with the financial institution. The financial institution is the one dealing with FNMA and FHLMC. Not quite sure how this is relevant to this article. 72Dino (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
More to the point, government interest-rate subsidies become a basic fact that determines market behavior. By analogy, it'd be silly to argue that someone has no right to criticize the administration of social security unless they refuse to collect their checks after paying into the system their whole life. At the same time, we say what sources say, and this will probably get more press; in my opinion it's better to give a fair presentation of the material and let the reader realize there's not much to it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The overall section is about her policy positions, and that is what I directly quoted, with the minimal information needed to put her quote in context. Hcobb (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get picky about it, her criticism of the federal funding is her policy position; her purchase of a house with federal subsidies is not. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Fannie/Freddie. I am a real estate lawyer and worked for one of the GSE's for many years. Fannie/Freddie don't "back" loans, they buy them. WAPO's business correspondents are terrible. It's virtually impossible for the average consumer to tell if their mortgage was bought by one of the GSE's or who the actual current owner of their mortgage is. The entity who sends you the invoices and info re taxes, ins. etc is the servicer, not the owner of the mortgage.

All mortgage companies use Fannie/Freddie form loan documents, so looking at the loan documents doesn't tell you anything.

I had a hard time trying to find out who owned my own home mortgage and I worked at a GSE and knew the system. Now almost 90% of all mortgages are bought by the GSE's. This wasn't always the case. Most importantly, the "subsidy" received by getting a mortgage originated to be sold to a GSE is about 1/4 of a percent-meaningless. Also, milllions of Americans benefitted from this subsidy that it's silly to charge her with being a hypocrite for getting a Fannie/Freddie mortgage on her house. Nicholascarew (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So true, unfortunately a number of RS's are trying to paint her as such. They seem to not care that she was most likely unable to have any influence on how the mortgage was treated. The desire to make political points outweighs the ability to put it into any context. We can't even point out the absurdness of it since it would be OR. I am not even sure you could buy a house today without having the government play some part, unless you pay cash for it. Arzel (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Schaeffer and dominionism

I propose to delete from "Schaeffer is regarded as a key intellectual source..." through the end of that paragraph. The fact that Bachmann admires Schaeffer is a notable fact, appropriately stated and sourced. Schaeffer is an enormously important figure in the history of evangelicalism, who wrote on a wide variety of topics. Readers who want to know more about Schaeffer can follow the wikilink. But I do not see any good reason to highlight one particular fact about Schaeffer (the fact that some regard him as an influence on dominionism) as opposed to all the other notable facts about him. And the fact that a couple of journalists have made a conjecture about Bachmann's opinions (she's influenced by Schaeffer, dominionists were influenced by Schaeffer so maybe she's a dominionist herself!) does not strike me as a notable fact about Bachmann. She's a controversial figure and lots of people have opinions about her; we can't discuss every opinion about her here. Any objections to this deletion? Mrhsj (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. The statement made that Schaeffer and Pearcey are ‘key intellectual sources for dominionism’, is obviously an opinion. In all my studies of Francis Schaeffer and my personal encounters, he never advocated dominionism. If you read the Wikipedia article on Francis Schaeffer it states, “… Schaeffer thought that Rushdoony’s system would require a merger of church and state, which he opposed.” Dominionism vigorously supports the merger of church and state. Therefore, the above comments by Ryan Lizza and Sarah Posner about Schaeffer and dominionism are patently false, and to attempt to pin dominionism on Michele Bachman via this back-door method of her respect for Francis Schaeffer is also false. Jimguess (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Jim Guess Jimguess (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUE, whether or not you agree with the way that Lizza and Posner present things is not important, its a very prominent viewpoint that is vital to peoples understanding of this issue. This lady is running for president if there is a credible analysis about her political beliefs from reliable secondary sources then it deserves to be included. Perhaps the wording should be improved but removing the reference to Schaeffer Pearcey and dominionism would be doing our readers a disservice. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Metal.lunchbox here. It is quite common for articles about politicians (or anyone else, really) to contain things that are being reported about the person, as long as long as the information is notable and verifiable. The article doesn't say that Bachmann is a dominionist; that would not be verifiable. But there are some notable, verifiable reports that she might be influenced by dominionism, and they should stay in, in my opinion. --Dawn Bard (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I was the contributor who wrote and sourced the paragraph in question, though of course I don't own it. As our article on dominionism indicates, it's debatable whether Schaeffer should be considered a dominionist per se, but his influence on the dominionists is unquestioned. More to the point here, Lizza and Posner (who are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards) point to Bachmann's statements about Schaeffer and Pearcey as evidence that dominionism has influenced her world view. Lizza's article on Bachmann describes Schaeffer as "a major contributor to the school of thought now known as Dominionism." Posner doesn't discuss Schaeffer directly, but she discusses the influence of Rushdoony and other dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists on Bachmann via her law training at Oral Roberts. I think that justifies the wording in the paragraph, regardless of whether Schaeffer should really be considered a dominionist.
That said, if other reliable sources have challenged this interpretation of Bachmann's theological background, their perspectives should be incorporated into the article as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I will grant that the New Yorker is an important enough source that the opinions expressed in the article there are worth mentioning here. What troubles me most is the discussion of Schaeffer and Pearcey, which makes it sound as though their influence on "dominionism" is one of the most important facts about them, as if any reasonable person discovering that Bachmann was influenced by them should immediately think "dominionist!" As I said before, Schaeffer is one of the most important evangelicals of the 20th century, and he was an influence on practically *everybody* within evangelical Christianity. The Wikipedia article on him barely mentions dominionism. As for Pearcey, the Wikipedia article on her does not mention dominionism at all. For some further critiques of the New Yorker article, especially of how it presents Schaeffer, see http://www.getreligion.org/2011/08/bachmann-associates/ http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/08/a-journalism-lesson-for-the-new-yorker/joe-carter http://newledger.com/2011/08/in-bachmann-attack-ryan-lizza-smears-francis-schaeffer/ Here's a new proposal: Replace everything from "Schaeffer is regarded..." to the end of the paragraph with: "Journalists Ryan Lizza and Sarah Posner have argued that Bachmann's worldview is deeply influenced by the Christian movement known as dominionism, citing the influence of Schaeffer and Pearcey as evidence. (keep current cites) Others have criticized the article, especially its connection of Schaeffer with dominonism. (add the 3 cites above) Mrhsj (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are useful sources, especially the First Things and New Ledger ones, which appear to meet the standards of WP:RS. I'm not sure whether GetReligion.org is a sufficiently notable source to justify its use in a BLP, though. As for Pearcey, her article did mention dominionism (citing the Lizza article) until this edit earlier today; I've restored it, along with a note cited to a Human Events column in which Pearcey herself disputes the use of the term. I think that Mrhsj's proposal here is a good one; we might be able to tweak the proposed sentence slightly, since Posner doesn't call Schaeffer a dominionist, and places more emphasis on the influence of Eidsmoe and the Rushdoony-based curriculum at Oral Roberts. (She also tends to use the term Christian Reconstructionist instead of "dominionist", which some apparently consider pejorative.)
How about something along these lines:

Journalist Ryan Lizza has argued that Bachmann's worldview is deeply influenced by the Christian movement known as Dominionism, citing the influence of Schaeffer and Pearcey as evidence.(cite to Lizza) Others have criticized Lizza's article, especially its connection of Schaeffer with Dominionism.(cites to First Things and New Ledger) However, religion writer Sarah Posner broadly concurs with Lizza, pointing to the influence of Christian Reconstructionists Herb Titus and R. J. Rushdoony on Bachmann via the curriculum at O. W. Coburn School of Law.(cites to Posner)

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. Mrhsj (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Added. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life > Family first sentence needs relevant cite

The current cites affirm her marriage to Marcus Bachmann, but fail to substantiate the claims of the granting of and kind of degrees. Would add [citation needed] HydraxCookies (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything in the given source either.  Done —innotata 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Expand Energy / Climate change denial section ... from Talk:Tea Party movement ...

Expand Energy / Climate change denial section ... from Talk:Tea Party movement ... Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole. 99.56.123.49 (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

These are currently in separate subsections: Michele_Bachmann#Global_warming, and others such as Michele_Bachmann#Domestic_oil_and_gas_production, and Michele_Bachmann#Light_bulbs. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
As the above implies, be more specific when you say "Energy" ... do you intend fossil fuel-based or Renewable energy, or something different? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No response in ten days, Special:Contributions/99.56.123.49 ... ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
In this article it states she believes climate change is a hoax ... is that Global warming conspiracy theory "hoax" or that Global warming controversy "hoax", as in Media coverage of climate change? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
That Jennifer Edwards piece is from March 15, 2008. Does she still believe/say that? 99.190.86.162 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Did she state "planet's life cycle", sort of Gaia hypothesis/Earth system science? Seems Planetary boundaries related. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This is quite a contrast with Global warming is a litmus test for US Republicans - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney crossed a dangerous party line when he stated his belief in anthropogenic climate change from Talk:Mitt_Romney 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
That article may be relevant for the Tea Party movement in general but it doesn't name her specifically for the United States presidential election, 2012, regarding Climate change policy of the United States. 99.119.129.32 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
True, but related. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding energy politics here is a link: http://thinkprogress.org/green/2009/04/24/172739/bachmann-harmless-co2/

Thank you for the suggestion Special:Contributions/79.239.50.238 and User:Roscelese (",). User:Arzel (Special:Contributions/Arzel), do not delete others' talk. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you 79.239.50.238 / Roscelese for the CSPAN clip. 99.181.157.149 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please wikilink natural gas. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify Oil (disambiguation) with a wikilink to the fossil fuel, Petroleum. 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)
Create an account. Quit hiding behind anonymous IP addresses. Arzel (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Why all the attitude, Arzel? 99.181.149.177 (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you have to hide? I've lost count of the dozens of IP addressed that you are using. Create an account and do your own bidding. Arzel (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you 99.+. What is with all the attitude Arzel ... let's improve this wp article, shall we? Or is picking a fight your goal instead? See Wikipedia:IPs are human too, and if you are really confused see Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think it is odd to thank yourself? Pattern recognition highly implies that you two are the same exact person. What is so hard about registering an account? If you want to contribute to semi-protected pages then just register. Arzel (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The IP issue - and their opinions don't matter here. This article is semi-protected, which means they can't edit the page. If the IPs wish to make any contributions, they should get their own handles and put this issue to rest. Otherwise, they're just wasting time. Dinkytown talk 02:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian counseling center - reparative therapy

Three seperate editors have tried to include information in this article about Bachman's widely reported involvement in a "counseling center" that practices "gay therapy". Arzel reverted all three of those attempts citing WP:COATRACK concerns, here, here and here. @Arzel - I appreciate that you continue your crusade against reality and the "liberal media", but this topic has been widely reported in multiple reliable sources in relation to Bachman. Clearly ABC or any of the other mainstream media outlets reporting on this don't believe it is a WP:COATRACK. You're continuous reversion here is more akin to WP:CENSOR rather than legitimate WP:COATRACK concerns. Clearly there is concensus for a addition here. Please do not revert again unless you can gain some support for your sentiment that this is infact WP:COATRACK. NickCT (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am well aware that the left media is full attack mode regarding Bachmann, and less suprized to see that attack being brought here. Your understanding of Coatrack is severely misunderstood. Media sources often will publish WP:COAT related stories, that they report it doesn't mean that it isn't a WP:COAT problem. We have a higher standard for inclusion of material that pure news sources, especially with regard to BLP articles. The fact remains, this article is about Michele Bachmann, not her husband or her husband's clinical practice. This particular issue reeks of political attack. The James O'Keefe of this story lied and was trying to entrap the Bachmann's, just like the James O'Keefe of Acorn. Yet this story is trumpeted because it promotes a left view, and the activist is a hero to most of the press. If ever there was a story to show the dicotomy of the press today, it is the reaction to this story my the media with it's reaction to the Acorn scandal. As to your last statement, you are correct. There clearly is concensus to trash Bachmann, with that I cannot disagree. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You, yourself, appear to badly misunderstand WP:COATRACK, which does not even remotely say that relevant but controversial matter should be excluded from any article. This article is does not even come close to COATRACK problems; your objection is not well-founded. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I haven't actually read that deeply into this story, so I can't really comment with authority; however, I would question whether you honestly believe that this is an O'Keefe-style "creative editing" hit-job. Remember that Bachmann is on-the-record as calling homosexuality "sexual dysfunction" and "identity disorder". I don't think you'd disagree her opinions on this topic could probably characterized as "far-right". Is it not plausible that somebody holding these kind of opinions would be related to an organization undertaking "reparative therapy"? NickCT (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, but your take sounds like OR to me. The activist actively went to the clinic for treatment to remove those feelings under the guise of trying to entrap the thearapist to perform the very treatment he is against. It certainly seems reasonable to me that if you were running a clinic like that, you would do what you could to try and help the people that come to you for help. I personally don't agree with Bachmann's views on GLBT issues, and have relatives and friends, and also roomates that have be all of them. They can do anything they want, I could care less, but I also don't have a problem with someone having a belief opposite. The far left, however, seem to have little tolerance to any view that does not prescibe with their own ironic view of tolerance. The view seems to be I will tollerate you so long as you don't believe anything that I disagree with. Arzel (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Plus, to contend that Michele is somehow uninvolved because her husband runs the business, is kindof invalid argument, because she profits financially from the business. Whatever methods/themes the business employs (if same or different from what's been alleged/reported) is surely something Michele is not "unawares". (They're married for Christ's sake!) What's generally known regarding the staunch conservative religious posture of the Bachmanns, is at least not inconsistent w/ what's been reported/alleged. (Is anyone saying it's inconsistent?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There's little here to respond to regarding article content, it's mostly attacks on other editors and anti-media paranoia. As NickCT points out, this has been reported by numerous RS media outlets (all part of the leftist conspiracy, no doubt!) in the context of reporting on Bachmann herself. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup. The coverage it's been receiving - which discusses what it means for Bachmann, not just for her husband, because she's a part owner of the clinic, because she's been making the business a selling point in her campaign, because she has loads of other anti-gay policies and comments - means it more than merits inclusion and that BLP is more than satisfied. Wikipedia is not censored. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
What Roscelese said. If not for her part-ownership and using the clinic as part of her pitch, I'd wonder if it was coatracking, but I feel it's a relevant issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I am neutral as to whether this is included, but given that it is in the article, it should be stated in a completely neutral way. I am in favour of stating the basic thrust of what is in the reference and leaving out the commentary. Conceivably, the paragraph could include an extensive discussion of the arguments for an against the therapy - all supported by the references - but that would clearly make the paragraph a COATRACK for the debate. The facts are that 1) there is a counselling business; 2) it has been accused of a certain type of controversial therapy; 3) Bachmann has an interest in the business, which is operated by her husband; 4) the husband denies that the therapy is provided an 5) there are counter claims that, despite the denial, the treatment is/has been carried out nonetheless. Delving deeper into the treatment itself, in my opinion is unnecessary. I am not going to start an edit war by taking out the commentary, but wonder whether we can get consensus to remove the words "a controversial approach, repudiated by the American Psychological Association". If we don't agree to taking out those words, we can't object to anyone who might want to include words arguing why the therapy might be legitimate (noting that the reference provides plenty of material for that). Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It would probably also be relevant to note that the undercover activist actively sought this treatment, or some variation thereof. Arzel (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The sources also include testimony from a patient who had no desire to change his sexuality. It would also be "relevant" to include that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Removing the portion about the APA is unwarranted. It's not "opinion" like pundit commentary, it's the leading organization of the field that Dr. Bachmann is a part of, it sets the standards of that field. The fact that this therapy is rejected and controversial is the entire reason this is even an issue. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Won't the adjective "controversial" to describe the therapy cover that? The greater debate around the inclusion of the issue is whether it is/will become a COATRACK. There is a risk that "the other side" of the argument can add the reasons why they believe the therapy to be legitimate and the whole section becomes a quasi discussion about the therapy, in which case the inclusion of the material becomes a soapbox rather than useful encyclopedic information about the article's subject. Conversion therapy is linked in the article, so anyone who wants to find out why it is controversial need only click on the link... Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
"Controversial" is vague and inadequate when used alone. If it were merely a matter of unpopularity, then "controversial" would suffice. But this issue is about professional standards, not unpopularity, and the APA sets professional standards in Dr. Bachmann's field. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be. For the sake of readability, can we at least word it this way: "Marcus Bachmann has denied allegations that Bachmann & Associates provides conversion therapy, a controversial psychological treatment repudiated by the American Psychological Association, which attempts to transform homosexuals into heterosexuals."? Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipeter, wouldn't your concern about inclusion resulting in COATRACK/soapbox be controlled by WP:UNDUE? What's the difference between this and a generalized conspiracy theory (moon landing hoax, etc.)? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, Ihardlythinkso. WP:UNDUE certainly applies. I just wanted to be completely sure that, in discussing this issue, we don't jump out of one ditch and jumping right into the other - i.e. consensus to include the section, doesn't give licence for other editors to use the consensus to then emphasize their position/opinion (not opinion about the the therapy, but about the article's subject). It's not a case of "winner takes all" in a consensus debate. Having said that, and having flagged this as a risk, I am OK with the whole lot staying in and watching it for both COATRACK and UNDUE developments. Hopefully we can at least agree to tidy up the prose as above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There being no further discussion, I have rewritten the sentence to read as proposed above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is quite a stretch to accuse editors of coatracking when they mention the 'reparative therapy' that Bachmann supports. Bachmann herself has on numerous occasions talked about the extreme importance she places on denying equal marriage rights to gay people. She lists rejection of gay marriage near the top of her policy objectives. In addition she says it's important to go back to the former policy of excluding gay service members. Bachmann's strong objections to gay civil rights and the high level of importance she places on the issue proves talk of her family's involvement in reparative therapy is NOT coatracking. William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL 75.110.195.48 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

I removed the maintenance tag in the lead section. While it is certainly true that the lead needs to be expanded, there does seem to be a lot of material that could be removed. The article is quite large and veers off the subject of her biography in many places. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian Youth Ministry

Would someone please explain to me how Bachmann speaking at a Christian Youth Ministry is either a political position or a social issue. It was pretty much just hanging around until another editor seperated out the social issues under her political positions at which point it became clear that it is neither. Now perhaps it belongs somewhere else. I don't see where or why, but it clearly does not belong in her political positions. Arzel (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, please stop deleting well-sourced material. Second, if it's in the wrong place then move it, don't delete it. Third, it fits very well into the section on "social issues". Her support of this group has become a (minor) political issue. However if folks want to move it to a different section I have no objection.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Bachmann's connection and support for YCRBYCH is very much a social issue. Just like Tom Emmer's support for YCRBYCH has been an issue during his campaign here. Bradlee Dean and YCRBYCH has been very controversial, not only for their positions, but also their statements against Gays. Bachmann's statement are far more supportive of YCRBYCH and Dean, than the Right's connection with Barack Obama's "...paling around with terrorists" with the Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, which Wikipedia has a complete page dedicated to the issue.
The Bachmann/YCRBYCH connection is a very relevant social issue. Dinkytown talk 22:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Says who? Left media? I see it as nothing more than a political hammer for purely partisan attack purposes. I don't see how it even compares to Ayers, for one I am not aware of YCRBYCH being involved in terror attacks and the death of individuals. Arzel (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
[inserted out of turn] You seem to be citing to WP:Liberal Media Bias. I'm not aware of any such policy, and it would seem that such a policy, if implemented, would run directly counter to WP:Verifiability. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The primary sources for this are liberaly biased sources, which call into question the weight given to the section and apply to WP:NPOV which is a trump over WP:V. Arzel (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any basis whatsoever for calling the sources "liberaly" biased sources, or for saying that use of "liberal" sources "calls the section's weight" into question? Also, core policies don't "trump" each other; they all have to be observed at the same time. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The Minnesota Independent is the primary source for this. They are a liberal source, and it is no secret. The London Observer (who knows why they said anything! and most will never know because the story is not linked) is also a liberal source. Who knows what Church and State is, I have never heard of them, and they are also not linked. So....all of the known sources are liberally biased (I assume with a name of Church and State they are as well) As such there opinion must be taken with a large grain of salt. You violate NPOV by presenting only the opinion of the left. Arzel (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
So they're "liberal sources" because you say so, and therefore they should be suppressed, because you say so, and additionally, including them violates NPOV (also because you say so)? Can't say I find that convincing, bro. Notice how WP:Because I said so is just as red as WP:Liberal Media Bias? That's because neither is a policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Bachmann went out of her way to support this group. Whether we put it under politics or personal life, it is relevant to her biography.   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how it is relevant to her biography. It would appear that it is far more relevant to the left and those that wish to attack her. She has not gone out of her way to make a big deal about it. The group, however, has made a big deal about her giving support, but that doesn't mean the relevance runs both ways. This was not really much of an issue for me before, but when the editor gave it its own heading it became clear that it is given far far too much weight. None of the sourcing is main stream, and there is yet to be an argument of why this is notable for her biography other than that the far left absolutely despises YCRBYCH and anyone connected to it. So please tell me why is it relevant to her biography? Arzel (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Will's comments, including the one that you replied to, give a pretty decent explanation.
Regarding your other comments, I don't see how any sense at all can be made of your claim that Bachmann's public statements and support for a Christian group are "more relevant" to a highly generalized segment of the political spectrum—arguably consisting of tens of millions of people who probably have had no relationship whatsoever with the group, much less a public one—than to Bachmann herself, the very person whose fundraising and public support of the group constitutes the substance of the factual reference itself, as discussed in the newspapers. It really seems to sort of defy logic. I'm not optimistic that any further explanation on your part would reveal it to be a sensible comment.
That said, please take care not to use the talk page as a forum for expressing apparent discontent with people who perhaps don't share your political beliefs. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't take this personally, but I have no idea what you are saying. You appear to be both supporting my argument and saying it has no merit at the same time. I have asked a valid question, that has yet to be addressed. Arzel (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Your response made even less sense than your previous comment that I was replying to. Your argument makes no sense and has no merit and my response clearly stated this. And as I also clearly stated, your "valid question" was already addressed.
To restate an admonition you may have also missed, please take care not to use the talk page as a forum for expressing apparent discontent with people who perhaps don't share your political beliefs. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Simply saying it has been addressed does not address the question since it has not been addressed. My only discontent with others are those that are obviously here to push a political point of view. I strongly disagree with Bachmann on this issue so spare me. Arzel (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
That works both ways. Simply saying your question has not been addressed doesn't mean it has not been addressed. Thousands of wikipedians before you have learned this the hard way. And besides taking more care to AGF, you might inquire as to the distinction between pushing a POV and reflecting a POV. Spoiler alert: the former violates NPOV; the latter is an inherent part of NPOV. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Since it is not a political position but a religous issue I moved it to the religous section. Arzel (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added dates to this segment from the refs as it is important to note that she supported this group in 2006-2009 because it was an "anti-drug Christian punk rock band" in the sources cited the group is controversial at that time for mixing public school outreach with Christianity which some viewed as a violation of the First Amendment. Bradlee Dean has made headlines since then (especially in 2011) for various controversial statements, but there is no evidence that Bachmann has had any contact with him since 2009. Nor has she made any comments about any of his statements. The information of the past connection warrants inclusion as some see it as something she will have to address, but we must take special care not to imply there has been any contact on her part since 2009 until we reliable sources that claim such.Wowaconia (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved this material on Bachmann praising "the group's work of sharing the gospel in public schools" to the education policy section. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This entire issue appears to have little to do with the Life of Michele Bachmann, and everything to do with the Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012 article. Should it (and a lot of other excess material in this WP:BIO) be moved there? SeanNovack (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually it has nothing to do with 2012 either, it has everything to do with her 2010 election. That is it was a political issue in 2010 from the left even though was Wowaconia stated above it was really from before 2009. Arzel (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it has everything to do with her religious beliefs and her politics. She's supported (both in public prayer and financial) Dean and YCRBYCNH before her 2012 presidential campaign. Left or Right, politicians do not start with a clean slate, just because the election year has ended. Dinkytown talk 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue for its inclusion in its present form because there are multiple stories circulating with titles like "Is Bachmann’s relationship with Bradlee Dean like Obama’s and Rev. Wright’s?" (as a quick Google search will show). She did support him for his Christian gospel in public schools movement but his his statements vs. the gay rights movement and his comments insisting that "America is a Christian nation" are even more strident than her own. He has also invoked her in his lawsuit against Rachel Maddow. Bachmann may well be asked if she still supports him after all this. There is no reason for us to ignore the facts, but we can not imply that she has come out with a position on him until she does.Wowaconia (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is actually about both her past and the 2012 election, as his controversial prayer before the Minnesota house implied that Obama was not a Christian. This all took place in 2011 as the article and refs state. This new controversy catapulted him into the media spotlight. The media then reprinted much of his previous comments on homosexuals which some commentators characterize as hate speech. This in turn raised questions about Bachmann's association with him.Wowaconia (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

POV in Opposition to higher education finance bill

I think the section "Opposition to higher education finance bill" needs some flavor of POV tag.

One loaded phrase is "students who do not use their education to prosper financially." This seems to imply that people have chosen to underutilize their education. A more neutral wording might be "students in lower income brackets" or "students closer to the poverty line" (according to the cited source, that is how the bill works: the closer you are to the poverty line, the more strongly your monthly payments are limited).

Also, "favor public sector over private sector workers" is misleading (if not flat-out incorrect): according to both sources cited, it is public service workers that benefit - not public sector. A nurse or doctor, lawyer advocating for the low-income, anyone working at a nonprofit, and even some professors are eligible. This info is directly from the sources cited (71 & 72). The current phrasing is misleading since it implies the bill encourages people to work for the government, when the actual bias in the bill is toward those who work 'for the public benefit.'

- Ytpete (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Nuke Iran, support Israel.. that's it? Call me lazy but does anyone have any additional information on what her actual foreign policy is? :) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.72.101 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper Interview re Obama's Asia Trip

Recommend adding a line regarding the host's (Cooper's) reaction to Bachman's talking points. He stated that the points she quoted were from an anonymous source, just the type of thing she'd been decrying recently, and that all of her points could have been easily debunked if she had checked any of them with White House or Pentagon officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.33.197.128, 18 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

On August 17th, 2011, Bachmann announced that if elected, would lower the gas prices to $2-a-gallon again. [2]


75.33.197.128 (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's more of a presidential campaign issue. I suggest adding it there instead.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Why? She went out of her way to mention it as a political position. Arzel (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
She made the campaign promise during her presidential campaign, so that's the most appropriate place for it.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please re-request if/when consensus is shown here.  Chzz  ►  05:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Consistency edit to the Social Issues section

I couldn't help but notice that the article says that Bachmann "said of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered,..."

The articles to bisexuals and transgenders are linked but the terms "gay" and "lesbian" are not linked to their respective articles. I'd fix it myself but I don't have the ability to edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikame912 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is English WIkipedia

I'm not a frequent editor of Wikipedia, I would just like to say that, in the first sentence, it shows "Michele Marie Bachmann (née Amble; April 6, 1956)", should this not be "(born..."? If not, ignore this, but it might make it hard for some to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.156.244 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The French "née" is widely used as a loan word in English when referring to maiden names. See Married and maiden names. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If "née" is French for "born", then shouldn't we just say "born"? This is, after all, the English version of WP. I'm educated and well read, and this is the first time I've ever come across this particular "loan word". Think about it: what percentage of the English speaking population do you think is more familiar with "née" than "born"? Everyone knows what "born" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.128.11 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I've seen this used for many decades. It is loan word like "rendezvous". It's also in the English dictionary here. Lets use it... Dinkytown talk 14:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Maiden names
It is absolutely standard practice in biographical info in the English language, including on English Wikipedia.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a user named "NapoliRoma" should be considered an authority on American English. I agree that the French word should be replaced by "born". Mardiste (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have to apologise and retract that post. I just checked out NapoliRoma's profile. And yes, without question, this person is definitely an American. The American Who Has Lived In Europe And Now Corrects Others About Languages He Or She Does Not Speak. Mardiste (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you! I think. I've added your vote to my new survey.
Not to be too dogmatic, but please note that I wasn't calling on my vast experience in Speaking the English, but on the Wikipedia Manual of Style, since the question wasn't "Do I personally like it?" but "is it the right thing to do here on the English Wikipedia?" Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and the Constitution

I have read this book. Every single chapter is about the religious and educational background of individuals at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. It shows that their morals were derived from Christianity. Nowhere does it suggest that any of them intended for there to be a national religion, or punishment for irreligion. The book openly says that none of them were theocrats. They did believe that laws could be based on religious law(the other main thesis of the book), but not in a way that would violate personal liberty and not without consent of the governed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.123.176 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 27 August 2011

Unfortunately, multiple reliable sources describe the book as a political one whose thesis is that the USA was founded as a Christian theocracy and should indeed be one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at your own article on Theocracy. What Eidsmoe's book talks about is worlds apart from actual Theocracy. Eidsmoe was simply tackling the assumption many have that delegates to the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention were religiously loose like Ben Franklin. Eidsmoe shows, case by case, that Ben Franklin was the exception not the rule. He shows that the divinity schools at Yale, Harvard, and especially Princeton played key roles in the education of many of these men. However Eidsmoe never says that any of these men saw themselves as prophets or priests, or that they believed that prophets or priests would lead the government. They obviously believed sinful men would lead the government, otherwise they would not have divided and balanced the powers of government as they did. Therefore even in Eidsmoe's view none of them were theocrats. Words mean things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.191.18 (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Natural disasters as warning messages from God

A couple editors have removed this reference, citing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER without any effort to explain why they think it supports removal. It doesn't support removal.

1. It's not a firsthand account. Thus, #1 is out.

3. This is not a situation involving excessive coverage of a person of limited notability. Thus, #3 is out.

2. This is clearly relevant to Bachmann's notability, and is not being included merely as a matter of "routine news reporting". The special significance of these comments, and the wide coverage they have received in the short time since Bachmann made them, is nicely summarized by a snippet from the Washington Post:

The three-term congresswoman’s comments, joking or not, moved into ”risky territory,” writes Politico. This may be especially true for a candidate who, in the two months since she announced her candidacy, has faced many questions about her religious worldview.

I'm restoring this content until someone at least attempts to explain why policy supports removal. I somewhat doubt anyone will be able to make that showing, because this material is quite fit for inclusion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This was a clear joke and has no long lasting value. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of material, information must be viewed for its long term value. We have to be reasonable here. It has reached a point that everything this women says is now somehow a controversy. Recentism is as good of a reason as any for why this should not be included. She makes a clearly joking statement, and the left media goes crazy trying to turn it into a manufactured controversy that will be forgoten in a week. Are people here so quick to demonize this woman that everything, regardless of comman sense is included? This is a clear violation of WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT and as was presented WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Fact Checker, why don't you go check some of the facts that Obama has made, like 57 states, corpseman, what MoH is still living, what his bowling skills are like, etc. for an idea of what is encyclopedic or not. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it wasn't a "clear joke"; that's part of the point. None of the other policies you name, but offer no explanation of how they allegedly support removal, appears to have application here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If you didn't see it for the joke it was, then you clearly did not even listen to the original presentation. All of the policies I stated are reason for removal, you have yet to explain why it is notable for inclusion. Additionally, this is a clear news spike story without any lasting value. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment is non-responsive and does not merit its own response. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree completely with Arzel. Primarily, this is a WP:BLP violation. It adds nothing whatsoever to a biographical understanding of her and adding it without context like this just fuels the simplistic narrative pushed by some that she's crazy or out of touch. It was just a single comment made at a campaign stop (whether she was joking or not doesn't matter). Get ready for it, it's campaign season. She's going to be making remarks that get repeated by someone on an almost daily basis now. We're not going to rush to add all of them to her biography. Let's set the bar high, here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a BLP violation in any way, shape, or form. BLP policy has no "exclude embarassing comments by subject" provision. The objection that "we can't include every comment" holds no water. As indicated, this one is special. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It is a BLP violation when the goal is to try and demean a living person by including everything they said in a way to make them look bad. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(A) No it's not; (B) that's not my goal and you really ought to AGF. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I assume good faith until that point when it is clear that there is no reason to make that assumption. You have reached that point. Arzel (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I had thought that AGF policy was a little more robust than that. If not, then I will stop assuming good faith on your part, as well, and revert to my baseline assumption that you're a Bachmann campaign volunteer who has taken it upon himself to perform damage control, when Bachman says/does outrageous or deeply troubling things, by dishonestly Wikilawyering in an attempt to improperly introduce bias to the article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess I can assume that you work for the Obama camp them and will try to trash any and all republicans. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
If I worked for Obama, why would I bother "trashing" Bachmann—instead of someone that has a shot of winning the election? ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The joke itself has been widely reported as being in extremely poor taste, and should therefore be included. Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that every joke that some people don't like should be included in the BLP of the person that made it? Obama made a joke about disabled people which was in increadibly poor taste. When those that wish to include this joke here are also clamoring to include it in his BLP then you would have something to talk about. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If you're here because you don't like the way the article on Barack Hussein Obama is written, you are in the wrong place. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I mention it here because the same kind of crap was discussed there and deemed not notable for inclusion. You have yet to show why it is notable for inclusion here, you have not. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's notable because it's a high-profile comment by a high-profile candidate for POTUS on a subject that has been given a very high profile by both the public and the mainstream media. But I've already said essentially this and thus have already stated the reasons for inclusion. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but name policies that don't support your desire to exclude this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If this comment does indeed dent her chances of winning the nomination, then it belongs at Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. If it doesn't, then it doesn't belong there. It doesn't belong here under any circumstances because it has nothing to do with her as a person. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

BLPs aren't supposed to be about "the subject as a person". That's not even part of the policy. We don't write a BLP to reflect what puberty was like for Neil Armstrong or talk about Ronald Reagan's boyhood pup Scrappy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel and Loonymonkey. Just because something gets covered does not automatically mean it meets the requirements for inclusion in an article. This is content that appears to lack any significance in the life of Bachmann or her campaign. Truthsort (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not being included "just because it got covered". It's being included because of the special significance of the comment in light of Bachmann's extensively self-publicized religious views. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like WP:OR to me. WP is not a place to build your personal research paper on a person. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not OR if it's a mainstream newspaper columnist making the connection. "Original research" refers to original synthesis and research by a Wikipedia editor. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • An aside to note that, despite it's frequent misinterpretation, WP:NOTNEWS is just a notability standard, not a content guideline. It helps us determine which events to write articles about, not what to include in already created articles. It has nothing to do with this discussion.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)
I haven't thought about this subject independently, but it seems to me that language supports Will's position, not yours. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Notability guidelines do not determine article content. They simply provide guidance on whether there should be an article or not. No one is proposing making an article about this statement.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


To me, this is not a thing about her worthy of putting in the encyclopedia under its own section heading. At best, it's a supporting example of a thing about her (her religious worldview, or her campaign style, or an event that catapulted her to victory or dashed her hopes of nomination), and would then be placed in some existing section.

The next question to me would be, "Is it a notable example worthy of addition to that existing section?"

I think the person who rated this along the lines of "57 states" or "corpseman" is pretty close to the point. These are ultimately inconsequential blips on the radar, and don't hold up as being able to carry a section on their own.

Someone calls out its "special significance." What is special about this that gives us insight into Michele Bachmann that the article does not already describe?--NapoliRoma (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the comment, quoted above, from the WaPo. Bachmann's own self-promotion regarding her religious outlook is what gives this comment, and reactions to it, special significance. I'll take your cue in not giving it its own section, though. It should probably go under "religious views". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As a general principle, most noteworthy statements made by the subject while campaigning for president should probably go in the campaign article.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with your general principle. This issue, however, fails to even reach a long term notable statement regarding her campaign. It had a short news blip which quickly died as the obvious nature of her trying to make a joke became clear. Arzel (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You have an odd notion of what constitutes a "blip". Ten pages of Google news results have appeared in the four days since she made this comment. There hasn't even been time for the issue to "quickly die", and it appears that it has not "quickly died". Nor is it entirely clear that she was joking, although it is clear that this is the message she now wants to send. In any event, I'm puzzled by your insistence that if this was a joke, it is not worthy of mention; making light of natural disasters that killed dozens of people, in order to score some political points by turning it into a soundbite/talking point about her views on government spending, seems to reflect a ghastly indifference to the people that actually suffered.
So while I don't see how you can claim that this statement will not have any long-term notability when the ink is barely dry on the initial news stories, if you ask me, people will remember this for a very long time. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who claim to see no indication of any "special significance" of these comments, here is a reaction from MSNBC:

At least 35 people lost their lives in Hurricane Irene. Damage estimates are already well into the billions of dollars, and we wonder: the next time Iowa faces a tornado or a flood, will Ms. Bachmann be so quick to joke about God's will in such a flippant manner? Let's hope not.

It may be that Bachmann and supporters would prefer that this be seen as a non-noteworthy joke made in good fun, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The joke was made before the hurricane hit. But I am not suprised that MSNBC would try to make an issue of it. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What possesses you to make such absurd comments unhinged from reality? The campaign stop was at 4PM on Saturday, August 27th, by which time the hurricane had already swept through the Carolinas and was about to hit Virginia, followed within hours by Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. So, no, it wasn't "before the storm hit" but rather while the storm was hitting, and after significant destruction was complete.
Besides that, it seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that this would have been a reasonable comment if it had been made before the destruction occurred — perhaps in that scenario Bachman would merely have been unexpectedly and unfortunately caught off guard by the fact that a hurricane actually caused damage and casualties when it swept through the most densely populated part of the country? Jeez. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the coverage of this, it seems like the media considers it to have been a significant issue. I think it should be added, briefly, to the campaign article.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That was a suggestion I made higher up in the article. I can see this having an impact on her campaign, but her biography? Anything that could be said will violate BLP principles. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I don't understand the remark, "anything that could be said will violate BLP principles". Why? She said it; it has been reported (it's verifiable) and can certainly be written in a way that doesn't constitute original research. I'm not arguing that it should be included, but I don't agree that it, by its very nature, will always violate BLP principles. I think anyone with string feelings about Bachmann (one way or the other) should probably go and read WP:COI and find other articles to contribute to - articles with subjects they are less emtionally involved with. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was that this issue isn't relevant to her biography, and that any attempt to enter it will involve WP:OR as it tries to make a connection to her biography, which will also violate WP:NPOV, at least as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Er... maybe I'm missing something about policy here, but it would seem the campaign article is just a sub-page of the BLP, and exists only for reasons of maintaining acceptable article size. If it weren't fit for inclusion in the BLP, it wouldn't be fit for inclusion in the sub-article, either. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Being relatively new to Wiki editing, I'm not completely sure what this qualifies as, but I'm of the opinion that both of you are in need of a trout-whacking over this discussion. Arzel, you appear to have an award for Socratic discourse and logic regarding edits of the Fox News article; Factchecker, you appear to have high hopes for the future public reliability of Wikipedia. Both of you appear to have a vested stake in the Bachmann Presidential campaign, hence such a vehement argument. I would suggest if you haven't already (I am posting a week after the last comment on this thread, after all) that you both take a break from edits to the Bachmann page except to revert blatant vandalism so that you can cool your heels. In the meantime, the rest of the nation may decide whether this is actually a controversial issue meriting widespread media attention (which would merit its inclusion in her campaign section/page). 174.19.130.108 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe much of this is about nothing. This page is supposed to be an overview not a detailed covering of every iota of things she said. Someone should go through and remove many things on the overview and put them in another area. By the way I'm voting for Obama in 2012 unless he dies then it will be Ron Paul. But wiki should add value to those wanting information. The sound bytes are for the news. Raymond D. Sweet 10:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsweet1971 (talk • contribs)

Campaign money: What to do with...

I know fully well that my below question re Michele Bachmann's campaign money does not belong in the article itself. Can any of you tell me where (in Wikipedia or elsewhere) the answer can be found?


Consider this hypothetical:
Given that MB is fundraising for her Presidential Campaign,
Given that she does NOT spend it all,
Given that she withdraws before she drains her campaign's bank account,

Is it true that she (or any other Presidential Candidate) can do WHATEVER SHE WANTS with that money?
(I DO meant to include BOTH putting it in her own pocket as well as using it for a House of Representatives Re-Election campaign.)

Not true.[1] Short answer is no personal use. They can roll it to a different campaign, donate to other candidates or charities, but can't legaly go on a shopping spree.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I find your comment to be plausible, but it doesn't answer the question that I _MEANT_ to ask. (Please excuse me on that one.) _WHERE_ do I find a reference source that backs up that answer?
LP-mn (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As noted in the FactCheck article, try checking the Code of Federal Regulations or the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. 174.19.131.37 (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to be asking these questions LP-mn. The talk pages are for discussions on improving the article. Truthsort (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I've heard it argued that that since Bachman has "no chance of winning", that the "only" reason why she's in is to improve her re-electability and/or get the money from the PAC funds that she collects. There is NO WAY I was going to post that without any backing sources. _THAT_ is why I wanted to check the facts. i.e.: Just because people I trust say something does not necessarily mean it's true.

LP-mn (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For that to be added into the article we'd need high quality sources that went far beyond the 'theoreticaly possible'. You'd need a high quality reliable source that flat out said 'She ran for president because....'.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Dr." Michele Bachmann

Can a section be added to Bachmann's page about how in the past she has called herself a doctor when she is not a doctor? All she has is a J.D. degree which is by no means a doctoral degree. Lododenverdude (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Lododenverdude

There is debate whether or not someone with a J.D. can use the word Doctor, see here. You may not like it, but from I can see, J.D. is a doctorate degree and she is well within her rights to use the word Dr. Your argument should probably be taken elsewhere. Perhaps right here where WP uses sources that state a J.D. is a Doctor. Arzel (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
A JD wouldn't be accepted as a doctorate degree in the European Union (there might be excaptions in very small former Eastern Block staates like Romania). Sometimes the US are quite interesting to watch from the outside.84.152.55.83 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the details, we'd need to have source making the explicit accusation.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
A JD is a Juris Doctorate. Just like an ED.D is a doctorate of Education and a PHarm.D is a Doctorate of pharmacy. Keep in mind wiki is not for your political disagreements. it is to provide people with information. Raymond D. Sweet 10:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsweet1971 (talk • contribs)

Edit request from Lee010191, 16 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} under the Same-sex marriage constitutional amendment source 60 is Un traceable. the source is as follows ^ Brunswick, Mark (November 21, 2003). "Keeping gay marriage outside law; Legislators propose constitutional prohibition". Star Tribune (Minneapolis). Needs revision with a traceable link as the information cited is contestable. Lee thomas 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please can you show a specific "Change 'x' to 'y' with references? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I had no trouble finding the source in the Proquest newspaper archive, which is available through many library systems. If anyone would like a quotation from the source please specify the assertion in question.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is not by any means a good look at what wiki is about. Bias runs rampant in this article. Challenge Bachman's faith, discussion on lightbulbs and anti american section about Obama. I don't know much about this woman, but I would like to know legitimate stuff about her from her perspective. Yes I get it she is bat crazy, but that is for newspapers. I just want the facts. Not in relationship to anyone else, but as herself. go look at the Obama discussion and page. A better representation of this great work. Raymond D. Sweet 13:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsweet1971 (talk • contribs)

Lightbulbs

This article is supposed to be an overview of Michele Bachman. I believe the light bulb situation does not represent an overview, but a biased opinion when you add the Collins reference. If you are going to keep the subject then get rid of the collins piece.Raymond D. Sweet 10:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsweet1971 (talk • contribs) I might add that I'm not voting for Bachman. I just support the unbiased work of wikipedia. Raymond D. Sweet 10:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsweet1971 (talk • contribs)

Accusations of Anit-Americanism against Barack Obama

That section did not provide information on Michele Bachman. This is an overview page. Not a hey Michele is whacked out of her mind page (which she is). As someone stated earlier a lot will be said, but does it give you insight. Raymond D. Sweet 10:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsweet1971 (talk • contribs)

Transgender, not transgendered

In section 6.8.1 Same-sex marriage constitutional amendment, it says "In 2004, the Star Tribune reported that Bachmann said of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered[...]" The word "transgendered" is incorrect and offensive to transgender readers; the correct word is "transgender".

71.123.134.159 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's either her error or the Star Tribune's, not ours, so it has to stay the way it is. Though perhaps a '[sic]' tag could be added. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a BLP not an attack page

I moved the completely irrelevant and inappropriate section on Barack Obama and the anti-American comments to the article on the 2008 campaign where it belongs (if it belongs anywhere). This is Bachmann's bio, it is a BLP and that section had no relevance in it. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. It's relevant to her, not particularly so to Obama or to the election. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that "anti-American accusation" section is relevant, I'm a little concerned that, compared to her other activities in the 110th Congress, there may be undue weight placed on this particular topic. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that's legit. But that means it has to be condensed, not removed or cut'n'pasted into a completely unsuitable other location. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not at all relevant to Michelle Bachmann. It doesn't belong in her BLP. It's POV pushing, nothing else. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this section reads, "On October 17, 2008, Bachmann gave an interview on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews in support of the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain that brought the Minnesota 6th Congressional District race national attention." Where is the reliable source that claims these comments by Michelle Bachmann brought national attention to the 6th Congressional race? Malke 2010 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have time to cite them now, but there are dozens of articles in the Proquest newspaper archive about the 2008 Hardball appearance. Among other consequences, the National Republican Committee stopped funding ads supporting her.   Will Beback  talk  16:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the edit. There are no reliable sources that I can find that make that statement. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In addition, use of "anti-Americanism" is OR. Bachmann questioned the patriotism of members of Congress including Obama. Anti-americanism is an entirely different thing. The section needs to be rewritten to clarify exactly what Bachmann was saying, the context she was saying it in, and mention that the Repubs pulled adverts and she apologized. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? What section or edit are you talking about?   Will Beback  talk  17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You need to read this section. I just listened to the entire Chris Matthews "interview." It wasn't an interview at all. Matthews was asking Bachmann for her view on the McCain campaign robo calls that question Obama's association with Bill Ayers. Bachmann never came out and accuaed anyone of anti-Americanism. Instead, Matthews constantly beat on her, throwing out terms like anti-American, and asked her what members of congress she would call "anti-American." She said, as anyone would, he would have to ask the members of Congress. You can see in the interview she is trying her best to keep up with his badgering and leading questions. This whole thing is completely misrepresented in this section. The whole thing should be removed or if it stays, it has to have exactly what she said. The quote from her in that section about anti-Americanism is total OR. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I've read this section but I don't see any diffs or the titles of the article sections to which you're referring.
What I do know is that the comment that Obama may hold "anti-American views" was widely reported (even so far as London), and had consequences. Unless I know what specific text is being talked about here I can't offer further comment.
However whatever we write should not be based on our own characterizations of the interview/appearance, which would count as a primary source. We need to stick to the secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Will, look here: [2]. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
You say that this matter has nothing to do with Bachmann's bio, but I don't think that's right. It brought considerable attention and controversy to the subject.   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying right now that this whole section is completely misrepresented as to what actually was said by her. Matthews set up the questions and used the labels. Bachmann was being asked to give her opinion of the McCain robo calls about Bill Ayers and Barack Obama's association with him. The quotes that are used in her bio and purported to be from Bachmann are false. She never came out saying any of that. I'm rewriting the entire section including changing the heading. She never came out and accused anybody of anti-americanism. The section should more appropriately be titled "response to McCain robo calls." Malke 2010 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you think that this brought "considerable attention" please provide the reliable sources to back that up. So far, I can't find any, including the papers in London. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

According to sources, the subject said she feared that Obama "may have anti-American views". She later said that she was prescient when she made that remark. It's certainly possible that her remarks were taken out of context, etc, but that doesn't mean the controversy never happened.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no controversy. At least, I can't find reliable sources to claim there was. And the only real reference I found was the New York Times piece in Oct 2009 that gave a brief mention which totally summed up the whole thing in one sentence: It said Bachmann had said (on Hardball) that she was concerned that Obama might have anti-American views. And going back to the interview, Bachmann only said this in the context she was given and that was the McCain robo calls that questioned Obama's friendship of Bill Ayers. And then she said that it is something the media needs to look at and said that if McCain were friends with Bill Ayers the media would be all over it. I think at the end of the day, an editor has confused Palin's comments about Obama "paling around with terrorists," with what Bachmann said on Hardball. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to get back to the computer later to provide excerpts from the articles describing the controversy. I've already mentioned one consequence. Another is that it reportedly led Colin Powell to endorse Obama over McCain.
As for the description of the event, I don't think we can rely on the original interview for the basis of our summary. But since there are so many reliable secondary sources available that won't be necessary.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see anywhere here that you've provided a source. And the original interview is absolutely necessary for a summary. And again, you say there are "so many reliable secondary sources available," yet you've not provided any here.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "I'll try to get back to the computer later to provide excerpts from the articles describing the controversy. "
Be patient. Have you read the sources already in the article - they mention the Powell thing, for example.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's a start until Will B. gets a more comprehensive list:
Fat&Happy (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, the controversy was also notable enough to be discussed in scholarly books, eg. [3], [4]. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not at all impressed with the 'scholarly' book. That is not the type of reliable source for this issue. What is needed is the actual transcript and the first source, the suntimes blog has the actual transcript. The Star Tribune is from the actual time and even though it still misquotes Bachmann, it does have a quote from her spokesperson that characterizes the interview and that can be used. In addition, none of the sources support characterizing this as Bachmann accusing Obama of anti-Americanism. Also, the only notability or 'controversy' came from liberal blogs and the Democratic party. No mainstream media outlet considered it of note. The controversy they focused on was the robo calls. And that is what this section should say. The questioning centered on the McCain campaign robo calls about Bill Ayers. Matthews is the one who used language such as anti-American, framing all his questions that way. Bachmann said she was concerned that Obama might have anti-American views. Nothing more, and certainly she never accused him or anyone else of anti-Americanism Malke 2010 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
A couple of questions. First, what about the books are unreliable? You say it's "not the type of reliable source for this issue." I'm not sure what you mean by that. Second, it doesn't matter what language Matthews used, because Bachmann continued to use it to describe Barack Obama's views (and views of Michelle Obama). She didn't have to use that term, but she did. To me, the difference between calling this "accusations of anti-Americanism" and "accusations of anti-American views" is non-significant. Also, at least in terms of Bachmann's accusations of anti-Americanism, the Star Tribune does not misquote her based on the transcript on The Sun Times:
Tribune:
"Barack Obama didn't have a mild association with Bill Ayers," Bachmann, a Republican, said. "He had a very strong association with Bill Ayers." Later, when asked by Chris Matthews whether she believes that Obama may have anti-American views, Bachmann replied, "Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views."
Sun Times:
BACHMANN: I think that it's important that the American people know that Barack Obama didn't have a mild association with Bill Ayers. He had a very strong association with Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers is not someone that the average American wants to see their president have an association with.
MR. MATTHEWS: So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti- American views.
REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views.
Was there some other misquotation? Finally, the claim that "no mainstream news outlets" covered this issue seems to be at odds with the extensive list of sources above such as from Time Magazine and The Guardian I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Malke--are you serious? This is not a reliable source for this kind of topic? That is a very, very strange thing to say. I don't know if you're clutching at straws, but there is no way that a source like that is not a reliable source. It is quite clear that the controversy existed and that it is well-covered--that means that UNDUE does not apply here, and that the section has a place in the article. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is what she said:

MR. MATTHEWS: So this is a character issue. You believe that Barack Obama may -- you're suspicious because of this relationship (with Bill Ayers)-- may have anti-American views. Otherwise it's probably irrelevant to this discussion.
REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely.
MR. MATTHEWS: So you believe it brings into --
REP. BACHMANN: I absolutely --
MR. MATTHEWS: So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti- American views.
REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views. That's what the American people are concerned about. That's why they want to know what his answers are. That's why Joe the plumber has figured so highly in the last few days.

The context must be stated. He was talking about the McCain Robo calls the mentioned Bill Ayers. As it is, a quote of Bachmann's was removed today. It helped show that Matthews was trying very hard to put words in her mouth. Without it, the quotes left behind are even more out of context. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"trying very hard to put words in her mouth". Very hard, and obviously very successfully. Perhaps a better opening would be:

In 2008, while being interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball, Bachmann was tricked into stating she believed Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, both hold anti-American views.

Fat&Happy (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this point of this article is not for us to speculate on the motives or whether Bachmann was "tricked" into saying something. Unless you can find reliable sources pointing to such kinds of claims, that kind of phrasing seems inappropriate. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I know that this may be off the main point of contention, but there is a HUGE difference between her saying that someone may have some anti-American views (i.e. views which which she would characterize as anti-American) and her saying that that some person is anti-American. The current text implies that she said the latter about Obama and/or others, but there appears to be no sourcing for that? North8000 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, if you review all the reliable sources listed above, they're split in their phrasing, with several saying she called Obama anti- or un-American, and others being more reserved. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you talking about the columnist's characterization of what she said, or that the columnist said that she specifically said that Obama or other prominent officials ARE anti American? North8000 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Samples:
2. "in 2008, Bachmann made headlines by suggesting that Obama had un-American views and that members of Congress should be investigated"
6. "It was the use of the term by Michele Bachmann – now a declared candidate for the presidency – in 2008 in reference to Barack Obama as 'un-American' that convinced Lewis of the need to try to pin down the nebulous concept." (same basic source as #18)
14. "said Obama 'may have anti-American views' and called for a news media 'exposé' of the views of members of Congress."
16. "she has drawn plenty of liberal scorn, not least for calling Barack Obama 'un-American' during the 2008 campaign"
18. "In 2008, the then current US presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann referred to future US President Barack Obama as 'un-American'." (obvious anachronism or misprint here)
Fat&Happy (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
These 'sources' are not from 2008 making these claims. These are later liberal sources picking up on the past Democratic blogs of the day. That is why none of them are accurate. The interview itself is telling. This was not a national controversy, and even if it were, it is about the McCain robo calls and the article must say that. It must be have the context. Malke 2010 (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see the excerpts below. They are contemporaneous sources, one of which explicitly calls the subject's remarks a "nationwide controversy".   Will Beback  talk  08:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Defending the McCain campaign's automated phone calls attacking Barack Obama's judgment and character, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., on Friday said Obama "may have anti-American views" and called for a news media "expose" of the views of members of Congress. Bachmann's comments came in a 13-minute interview on MSNBC, during which she asserted that Obama has a close connection to 1960s radical William Ayers, a theme of the phone calls and recent remarks by McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin. [..] Later, when asked by host Chris Matthews whether she believes that Obama may have anti-American views, Bachmann replied, "Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views." [..]Bachmann also said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, both Democrats, have "far-leftist views." When asked whether she considered members of Congress anti-American, she said, "The news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America or anti-America." [..] The controversy arose on a day when Palin was quoted by Time magazine online saying, "I don't question at all Barack Obama's love for the great country."
    • Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann sounds 'anti-American' theme on Obama during TV interview Doyle, Pat; Anderson, Mitch. McClatchy - Tribune News Service [Washington] 17 Oct 2008.
  • A Republican congresswoman from Minnesota said Friday that some of Senator Barack Obama's associations raise the possibility that he has "anti-American views." The lawmaker, Representative Michele Bachmann of suburban Minneapolis-St. Paul, made the remarks to Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball," and cited Mr. Obama's ties to Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and William Ayers, a founder of the radical group Weather Underground in the 1960s, whom she called "over-the-top anti-America." "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views," Ms. Bachmann said in reference to Mr. Obama. [..]Asked how many members of Congress she would describe as "anti-American," Ms. Bachmann replied: "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America. I would love to see an expose like that."
    • Tough Talk About Obama: [National Desk] Wheaton, Sarah. New York Times [New York, N.Y] 18 Oct 2008: A.15.
  • Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was parrying questions Friday from Chris Matthews on his MSNBC "Hardball" show, which is not for the faint of heart. Still, she did not necessarily have to keep stepping deeper into the hole he kept digging for her. Initially, they were discussing Obama, with Matthews quizzing her about the Republican-backed "robocalls" -- viewed by many as over the top -- that play the Bill Ayers/terrorist card against the Democrat. Bachmann said of Obama: "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views." Then she said: "I think the people that Barack Obama has been associating with are anti-American, by and large." Matthews wondered if that included Democratic leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "I'm not going to say if they're anti-American or pro-American," Bachmann said. Pressed by Matthews about members of Congress in general and whether, in essence, their patriotism should be called into question, Bachmann called on the media to launch a "penetrating expose and take a look . . . at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-American or anti-American."
    • TOP OF THE TICKET / DON FREDERICK AND ANDREW MALCOLM; A patriot, no doubt . . . OK, a bit of doubt Frederick, Don; Malcolm, Andrew. Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif] 19 Oct 2008: A.23.
  • A spokesman for DFLer Elwyn Tinklenberg's congressional campaign said a "fire" had been lit after his opponent criticized Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. John Wodele said Saturday night that 9,000 people nationwide have donated roughly $450,000 in the 24 hours since Rep. Michele Bachmann told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that Obama "may have anti-American views." "Momentum has been going our way, but her appearance and what she said on "Hardball" just sort of accelerated this fire that has been lit under our campaign already," Wodele said. The campaign had received 600 e-mails as of 3 p.m. Saturday after her appearance, he said. The Republican's comments came in a 13-minute interview during which she asserted that Obama has a close connection to 1960s radical William Ayers, a theme of recent remarks by GOP presidential candidate John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin.
    • Bachmann's comments spur opponent's fundraising spurt Aquino, Jeannine. Star Tribune [Minneapolis, Minn] 19 Oct 2008: B.11.
  • SEAN SCALLON, on the American Conservative blog writes about a dust-up over Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann's assertion that Barack Obama may have "anti-American views". Mr Scallon argues that Ms Bachmann is essentially Ann Coulter but in Congress, and that Republican red meat might be safer for book-selling than vote-getting this year. This goes to a point that came up in the comments on my colleague's post from Sunday--that right-leaning pundits don't need to adjust to the national mood, but GOP candidates had better.
    • Conservatives and the governing right The Economist (Online) (Oct 20, 2008).
  • Do you folks do this sort of thing in Britain? [..] This point was proved most dramatically by a woman named Michele Bachmann, a member of Congress from Minnesota. In an interview last Friday on Hardball, a leading US cable talk show, host Chris Matthews asked Bachmann whether Obama worried her. "Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views," she said. He asked her what she thought distinguished liberal from hard left from anti-American. If she maintains such distinctions in her mind, she refused to acknowledge them. Then, finally, Matthews - who deftly fed her the rope to hang herself - asked her how many members of the US Congress held, in her view, anti-American views. [..] Bachmann's answer, however, will live imperishably: "What I would say - what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that." [..] Bachmann's appearance caused a national uproar. Colin Powell, in endorsing Obama yesterday, said of Bachmann's comments that "we have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together". Her Democratic opponent raised nearly half a million dollars from around the country in just 24 hours, and he now has a chance of beating her.
    • Comment & Debate: The Republicans have lifted the lid off their rightwing id: Now McCain's supporters are casting Obama as anti-American. This may well scare voters, but not the way they mean to Tomasky, Michael; Washington. The Guardian [London (UK)] 20 Oct 2008: 29.
  • After Republican Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) on Friday called for an investigation into Members of Congress with whom she disagrees, the six DFL members of Minnesota's congressional delegation issued a joint statement. "For Michele Bachmann to go on national television and say that Members of Congress should be investigated for 'anti-American views' calls into question her judgment and her ability to work in a bipartisan way to put the interests of our country first in this time of crisis. Like Colin Powell, who called Bachmann's comments 'nonsense,' we are embarrassed by her comments."
    • Minnesota Dems: DFL Congressional Delegation Jointly Denounces Bachmann's Divisive Comments Targeted News Service [Washington, D.C] 20 Oct 2008.
  • Now to one race where the poll margins might suddenly be getting tighter. On Friday, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota made some comments in a TV interview that have Democrats sensing a new opportunity. The comments by Michele Bachmann have sparked a slew of donations to her challenger. Minnesota Public Radio's Tom Scheck explains what happened. TOM SCHECK: Before Friday, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann appeared to have a solid shot at returning to Congress. She's well-known in the district and has a cash advantage over her Democratic challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg. But that changed when Bachmann appeared on MSNBC's "HardBall" with Chris Matthews and said this about Barack Obama.
    • Slam At Obama Stirs Minnesota House Race Anonymous. All Things ConsideredWashington, D.C.: National Public Radio. (Oct 21, 2008)
  • Since appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball" Friday, Bachmann has been saying that her comments to host Chris Matthews were misunderstood. On Tuesday she blamed Matthews for setting the stage for a nationwide controversy that has followed her remarks on his show.
    • Bachmann says she 'stepped into a trap' on 'Hardball': The Congresswoman blames 'Hardball' host Chris Matthews for setting the stage for a nationwide controversy that has followed her remarks that Barack Obama "may have anti-American views.? Doyle, Pat. McClatchy - Tribune Business News [Washington] 21 Oct 2008.
  • The national fundraising committee for GOP congressional candidates has canceled its Minnesota Twin Cities TV advertising for Rep. Michele Bachmann, who is using the flap over her comments about Barack Obama to raise money on her own. [..] The ads were canceled Tuesday afternoon, after several days in which Bachmann was the subject of criticism for her televised remark on Friday that Obama "may have anti-American views."
    • NRCC cancels Minneapolis-St. Paul TV ads for Rep. Bachmann Doyle, Pat. McClatchy - Tribune News Service [Washington] 22 Oct 2008.

Two of these are from the UK. It's called a "nationwide controversy". There are hundreds more, but I don't have time to go through them now. Anyway, it's clearly a major event in the subject's public history.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that this is off of the main point of contention, but the sourcing the Fat and Happy and Will provided actually bolstered my earlier point. All of them which purport to say what she actually said say that she spoke of Obama having some anti-American views, not that she said he was anti-American. There is a huge difference between the two. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I went over all those sources and none of them support a huge backlash against Bachmann nor do any of them have her "accusing Obama of anti-Americanism." And none of them offer the context of the conversation which the transcript makes plain. It is in response to the McCain robo call about Bill Ayers. When the context is given, the comments make sense and they are not inflammatory in the way they are being presented at this time. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the header from "Accusations of anti-Americanism" to "Accusations of having anti-American views." Still, I'm not sure that "accusations of anti-Americanism" implies that she said Obama was anti-American; rather, it seems to imply that he engaged in anti-American behavior of some kind. I'm also not sure how including that context makes her comments seem less inflammatory; I'm concerned about adding too much detail to this anyway because of undue weight issues. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It should read like this: The header should be: "McCain Campaign Robo Calls Controversy" and then the opening sentence should be: "On October 17, 2008, Bachmann gave an interview on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews in response to the latest McCain campaign robo calls which questioned Barack Obama's close association with Bill Ayers." That is what the interview, which is the best source, says. Afterall, the interview is being used for her quotes, but they are selective quotes. And as the opening sentence stands now, there are no reliable sources to back that up. This is a BLP and entries must be accurate or they must be removed. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Saying that the robocalls were the primary subject of the controversy would be entirely contrary to the views of reliable sources. No original analysis, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The interview is a reliable source. Also, it's not "original analysis. It's fact. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC Hardball excerpts:

Opening of interview:

MSNBC "HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS" INTERVIEW WITH REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN) INTERVIEWER: CHRIS MATTHEWS

5:02 P.M. EDT, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2008

MR. MATTHEWS: Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota joins us right now. Congresswoman, thank you very much for joining us. I want you to look at something from David Letterman last night. It concerned, well, Governor Palin's comments about Barack Obama.

(Shows Letterman segment about McCain campaign robo calls.)

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let's take a look now, Congresswoman, at the radio tape message that's going in a number of states right now, being put out by the Republicans and the John McCain campaign. It's called a robo call. You just pick up the phone and you hear this recording.
ANNOUNCER: (From audiotape.) Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, what do you make of that, Congresswoman, that what's called a robo call and what Senator McCain said last night on Letterman?
REP. BACHMANN: Well, I think it's fun to have a sense of humor right now. And especially last night on Letterman, I thought that John McCain was extremely funny.
As far as the robo calls go, I think that the Obama campaign is very worried, because Americans are just now starting to find out about Bill Ayers and about the questionable connection that Obama has with Bill Ayers. These are legitimate questions. And I think the Obama campaign has a right to be worried, because they don't want the American people to know about these connections.

And there follows the discussion about her concerns that Obama may have anti-American views (a term fed to her by Matthews) because of Obama's association with Bill Ayers. The entire show is about that and after Bachmann leaves, Matthews talks to a Democratic strategist about the robo calls. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The original subject of discussion was the robo-calls. That doesn't mean the ensuing national and international controversy was about the calls. There are some reliable sources above demonstrating controversy about Bachmann's "anti-American" comments. Do you have any stating that the controversy was solely (or even primarily) about the calls? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The entire subject of the interview was the robo calls and the questions about Bill Ayers. That was the whole point of it. This is a BLP. It is held to a higher standard. The above are not reliable sources. They are simply mimicking blogs, not doing any fact checking. Those 'sources' could be used to mention the fact that the interview was totally misrepresented. The context must be there. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The interview is a primary source, you can't analyze it yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
No "analysis" is required. Accurate quotes with the context and then adding in the sources that have Bachmann's take on the dust-up will be sufficient. As it stands now, it is all original research. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
No dude, reporting the views of reliable sources is exactly what original research isn't. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good description of what is there right now as it doesn't report the views of reliable sources but is instead totally original research. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The controversy Bachmann was about her suggestion that Obama, and much of Congress, may have anti-American views. It doesn't matter what the topic of the original interview was.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; the original topic of the interview and your interpretations about the need to frame the quotes in the larger picture of robo calls is not really necessary. Why? Because that's not how reliable sources covered the interview and the discourse within it. You can claim that the interview was "totally misrepresented," but unless you can provide reliable sources that back up that claim, those views or edits that attempt to "fix" the article based on that opinion are not merited. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, one needs to decide whether the disputed content is the interview or the dust up that followed. If it is the interview, then it should cover the interview rather than op-ed pieces on it. If it's about the dustup, then all angles should be covered rather than just covering certain media's statements of opinions of her including via op-ed type "coverage". In that case, certian actions by certain media are a part of the subject of the material rather then being the coverage. For example, showing the varying stories, as some changed it from the actual "has some anti-america ideas" to the fictional characterization "is anti-american". and which ones took it out of / did not provide the context ....an off-hand answer to a crafted question in an interview about something else. Also cover difference between that actual interview and it as represented by certain media outlets. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly what is going on here. The whole thing seems to be that Bachmann appeared on Hardball when the McCain robo calls that questioned Obama's association with Bill Ayers were in the news. Hardball that night was all about those robo calls. Matthews asked Bachmann about the association with Ayers and she responded to his leading questions of "anti-American views" by saying Obama's association with Ayers made her concerned that Obama may have anti-American views. At no time did she accuse him of holding anti-American views and certainly never accused him of the very serious charge of Anti-Americanism. The Democratic blogs went nuts and people started sending money to Bachmann's opponent. At no time did this reach a national level. There are no New York Times and Washington Post articles about this. Charlie Gibson did not lead the World News with it the next night. It was just a blog thing that completely misrepresented what was said to rouse support against her. Bachmann said the whole thing was a bad case of "telephone," and said she was misunderstood by the blogs and she apologized if people misunderstood what she had said. That is what the edit should be about. She offered her concerns, they were misrepresented, her opponent got a windfall in contributions, she apologized, the end. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what the scope should be. It always get tricky where certain media that are in opposition to someone will (through coverage and wording and spin) "create" the story out of something that was otherwise just one comment amongst 100,000's by that person, when it appears it will be beneficial to their leanings. Wikipedia doesn't make a distinction there, but in those cases, a big part of the "dustup" is what the media did with it, and such is certainly a part of the story that should be covered. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sources?   Will Beback  talk  16:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a talk page scope discussion, not content. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
North8000, I totally agree. You make all excellent points, so I've hunted down a few sources that explain what happened that day. I'm working on putting something together that can replace what is in the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
N8000, anything we write will need sources.
Malke2010, please post your draft here so we can all give input before doing anything radical to the material.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Will, please stop synthesizing the section on Bachmann's support of President Obama on the birth certificate issue. She was never among those shouting for the president to release the long-form. She was asked about it after Donald Trump renewed calls for the president to show the long-form. She has always said she took the president at his word. I'm going to restore the edit which is very well sourced, so please leave it. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

Excuse me? "Attack" page? Tell me, if she had answered the question intelligently, dismissing the suggestion as both simplistic and idiotic, and if that were then quoted in this article, would this talk topic even exist? It is a well known answer she gave to a suggestion that she could have intelligently disagreed with, but she eagerly adopted it as her own viewpoint, at least for the duration of that interview, and it speaks volumes about her as a person. Barack Obama is not anti american nor is he an anti american; the very idea of the "sinister anti american" in american politics is childish; a sort of "bogey-man" for conservatives to scare people with, yet someone who expects to be taken seriously, rabidly adopts the position that a candidate is in fact this bogey-man, instead of simply dismissing the concept as a childish. This and her vocal expressions of desire for "the media to do a penetrating expose" to weed out members of congress who have "anti american views" give a deep insight into the abject lack of intelligent thought going on behind that vacuous smile, and are essential to any article dealing with this person. (124.170.6.214 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC))

  1. ^ https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1714.0&session=ls83
  2. ^ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/08/bachmann-promises-to-low-gas-prices-below-2-a-gallon/1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michele_Bachmann/Archive_4&oldid=1142770616"