Talk:Marsha Blackburn/Archive 1

College
What did she graduate from university in? The article fails to mention.

Satwa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.217.255 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Political Coruption

Iraq Soldier Controversy
The fact that Rep. Blackburn was unable to name the last person from her district to die in Iraq, even whoever she thought it was, is absolutely the point of including this in Wikipedia. She could have said the first soldier, the second to last soldier, anyone. She didn't name anybody. Shuster accused her of not knowing, and he was right. If Blackburn had said a name, any name, this would not be noteworthy. As it was, it was shown on national TV that she couldn't even weather a guess. Is that worthy of being included in the Wikipedia profile of a war supporter? You bet it is. An agreement on how to include that FACT must be reached. Anything less is obfuscation and intentional deception.Generalklagg 11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is not whether or not she could not A soldier from her district, but whether or not she was sandbagged and misled by a reporter with an agenda. I feel that I have accurately laid out both sides of the argument highlighting the difference between "legal residence" and "home of record." Strongbad1982 is welcome to discuss why including information that is not pertinent to Mr. Shuster's arguably inaccurate question is relevant. It's not. It only serves to make her look ignorant and out of touch which for someone who has consistently edited articles on conservatives and Republicans to make them look poorly, should come as no surprise. The information is unnecessary and her knowledge (or lackthereof) per the last soldier killed from her district is demonstrated through the already included passages as it states "Shuster then asked what the name of the last soldier from her congressional district who had been killed in Iraq was, and she was not able to name the solider." What more do you need? Adding a specific paragraph on her inability to answer the question is just an attempt to make her look poorly. Not surprising given Wikipedia's general liberal tilt. Abacab 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Being "sandbagged" is irrelevant. It is very much a matter of record whether the Representative bothers to keep track of things like who from her district has died for her beliefs, especially in light of the fact that moments before she attacked the New York Times of "breaching the public trust". If there is a disconnect between what someone says they beleive and what their actions show them to actually beleive, then it goes in their Wiki article. If you want to talk about unneccessary, take a look at the semantic obfuscation you put forth, hiding the fact that she couldn't answer the question behind which half of a divided county a slain soldier was from. That's propaganda. I am Generalklagg, and I agree with Strongbad 100%. We look to include FACTS, you, Abacab, only wish to PREACH on your agenda. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of objective vs. subjective speech to suggest otherwise. Wikipedia isn't about your opinion as to whether the Congresswoman was "sandbagged", or whether the reporter had an "agenda". If anything, that's for Shuster's page, not this one. This article is about Rep. Blackburn, and what kind of person SHE is.

Here's a compromise edit for you:

On September 24, 2007, Blackburn was interviewed on Tucker, the news show of Tucker Carlson, which was being hosted by guest host David Shuster[1]. When asked about her outrage behind the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad campaign, Blackburn accused the New York Times of "betraying the public trust". Using the public trust issue as a segway, Shuster then asked her for the name of the last soldier from her congressional district to be killed in Iraq. She was unable to answer.

How's that for straightforward? Get's rid of all the irrelevent nonsense, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The sandbagging itself is not including in the article as is and I never did include it. I made mention of it here on the talk page. I made clear the differences between legal residence and home of record for the reader to decide whether or not Shuster got it right or wrong. In fact, using your logic, this whole "controversy" could be moved to the Shuster article save for the question that was asked, Shuster questionable accuracy, and her subsequent inability to name the LAST soldier from her district that was killed. Certainly, she could have named anyone, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if she named a random person, she would have been accused of just picking a name out of the blue to make up for lack of knowledge regardless. Anyway you slice it, you (general) and your compatriot (Strongbad1982) are intent on making her look as bad as possible. Though your compromise edit is not a bad start. By the way, I never hid the fact she didn't answer the question. How many more times do I need ot paste the same sentence in here stating SHE DID NOT ANSER THE QUESTION. Abacab 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "sneaking suspicions" are irrelevant. This is a matter of fact. Painting the picture based on what you think might have happened if she had acted differently is BIASED. She didn't answer who she thought was the last person who died was. She didn't try to answer- she said she didn't know. Everything else came AFTER she said she didn't know. I absolutely stand by the revision I just put forward. That's all that needs to be in the section. The issue isn't what side of the road the soldier lived on. Questions about Shuster's journalistic integrity are best addressed on his page. Furthermore, you claim that I am trying to make her look bad, no, she already did that. Just to show you that no, I am not trying to make her look worse, let me share what I'd really like the passage to say:


 * On September 24, 2007, Blackburn was interviewed on Tucker, the news show of Tucker Carlson, which was being hosted by guest host David Shuster[1]. When asked about her outrage behind the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad campaign, Blackburn accused the New York Times of "betraying the public trust". Using the public trust issue as a segway, Shuster then asked her for the name of the last soldier from her congressional district to be killed in Iraq. She was unable to answer. This has led to charges of hypocrisy, as the Representative's comments painted her to be more beholden to the party line than to her constituents, the same "betrayal" of the public trust that she had accused the New York Times of moments earlier.

Like I said earlier, Abacab, trying to change the issue from what she said to the tactics used is obfuscation. She might've fallen into a trap, but it was what was in her heart that sprang the trap. No amount of "but his residence was listed as..." can undo this revelation into her character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your consistent use of the word "obfuscation" is really quite impressive. Your lexicon is well above and beyond mine. That being said, you have consistently ignored my point about her lack of knowledge regarding the last soldier to die from her district, in Iraq, is already pointed out in the current revision. What is your problem with that? Does it need to be any clearer? Why do you keep avoiding that? I am also glad that you've at least made your bias a little more transparent with your "desired" revision as it is close to the most slanted thing you could put in there. I have never 'tried to change the issue' from what she said to tactics of David Shuster. I have included both in the current revision. Let me say it again, and I am going to use bold and caps one more time to see if you'll actually respond to this part, because so far you have not: She replied she didn't know why she couldn't recall the name, at which point Shuster questioned her integrity for not knowing the names of those from her district who had been killed for a war she supports so strongly. Blackburn became indignant and did not answer the question. What more is there to be said? Is that not pointed enough for you? What she said is still included ALONG with the slanted word "indignant." I'm not sure where you're drawing this conclusion that the current revision has attempted to show how she would have "acted differently." My comments about a "sneaking suspicion" are including in this discussion, not the current revision. My points were merely about your motives to include your incredibly skewed idea of what should be there and how anything she would or could have said would have had the left wing up in arms. If there is anyone here who has attempted to change what this whole matter is about, it's you. The facts are as follows: Shuster asked a question where his facts were wrong at worst and somewhere in between wrong on one level and right on another depending on the military terms used. Con. Blackburn did not answer the question and did not know the last soldier to die from her district. Shuster named a soldier, who has since had a conflicting home of record and legal residence. I'll say it for the eight millionth time, what more do you need? Do you want Moveon.org writing this article instead? There's nothing to "obfuscate" here. Shuster was of questionable integrity and she didn't have an answer. The end. Abacab 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you must have looked up "obfuscation". Well, I'm not going to just assume you're dumb and talk down to you. I'm just saying it needs to be shorter and to the point. The shorter we make it, the less "slant" can get into it. I think we both want that. So, yes, I think it needs to be clearer. It's pretty obvious that talking at length about the specific soldier distracts from the point. No one can say definitively what district he was from. Hence it is moot. It changes the discussion from talking about the issue to talking about talking about the issue, like what we're doing now. Trying to get people to do that is dishonest. I don't think you are doing it intentionally, but you are doing it. So let's use, or improve on, the compromise article (which doesn't even use the slant word "indignant", by the way), and link the detailed stuff about Shuster to the Shuster article, or somehow pare it down. Whaddya say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree, and are busy hammering out a compromise, or did you just switch tactics to ignoring people?

The sentence "It has since been determined that the soldier did in fact claim Bon Aqua, TN as his legal residence before enlisting which is in Rep. Blackburn's district." needs a run-on sentence, and needs a citation. The grammar can be easily fixed, but the part where he listed his residence in the 7th district BEFORE he enlisted needs a source to be included. Also, it is in question whether Bon Aqua is actually in the 7th district, as Blackburn county is divided in half. A definitive source for that information would be helpful. If it's true, it's true, but as always, it needs a citation.

Saying "Blackburn rightly became indignant and did not answer the question." is unencyclopedic. "Right" and "Wrong" are subjective and cannot be included. Furthermore, I don't think Rush Limbaugh brands himself as a "comedian" and so we shouldn't either.

The statement "A further investigation revealed that Jeremy Bohannon was not actually from Rep. Blackburn's congressional district, but was from the congressional district of Rep. John Tanner." needs a citation before it can be included, because the Wahington Post lists him from Bon Aqua in Hickman County. This is in the 7th district according to the Tennessee Electronic Atlas. Who did the "further investigating"? Was a retraction issued? If it's true, it's true, but it needs a citation.

A request has been filed to protect this article from editing by newly registered or IP users. The sentence stating Blackburn's inability to name the last solider killed in Iraq from her own congressional district is not only relevant, it is totally encyclopedic and well sourced. It is a critical part of the story of the controversy and understanding Blackburn's history in relation to the Iraq War.Strongbad1982 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's unncessary and redundant. Her inability to name a soldier is already clear from the passage, "Shuster then asked what the name of the last soldier from her congressional district who had been killed in Iraq was, and she was not able to name the solider." There. It's included. You simply want an additional paragraph to make her look particularly bad. The sentence states, "SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO NAME THE SOLDIER." There. It doesn't need a special annotation. Abacab 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no 'sandbagging' involved, because Schuster was right the first time, and thus mistaken to issue a correction. Look it up, but don't post it to the article (because that'd be 'original research', and frankly, unnecessary as well, better just to avoid that pointlessly irrelevant can of worms). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.251.96 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

current edit war
I will keep on RVing, so just quit it. Cornell Rockey 18:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Congresswoman Blackburn (or is it Congressman?), we know one of your staffers is playing games--get a leash on them, will ya? Blueboy96 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have listed that IP on WP:AN/3RR for you. &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee @  19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why can't we just try to find a reasonable solution? I replaced the image with a proper head shot, because the original wasn't that great anyway. Ho hum....&#160;—  The KMan  talk  22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in contact with the anon (he's one of her staffers). He has a point (that the picture with Delay isn't a very good one) and I'll ask if he has a better (e.g, copyleft) picture we could use. In the meantime, I've protected the current article. Raul654 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow up - he said he'd be happy to supply us with a copyleft replacement photo early next week. Raul654 01:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, but I'm not too sure why the page needs protection now.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  02:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this seem to violate the house/senate staffers shouldn't be editing wikipedia rule? If Rep. Blackburn appeared in public with Tom Delay, thats part of the historical record. Cornell Rockey 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't any rule against the staffers editing Wikipedia. Anyway, sure, they were in the same image together, but this is an article about "Marsha Blackburn", not an article about "that time Rep. Blackburn was standing somewhere out in the background while Tom DeLay was speaking about whatever at a podium". It wasn't the best image of her out there. —  The KMan  talk  04:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As the person who uploaded it[currently I am on a HofR pic uploading binge], I know it wasn't the only image out there. I looked through all the shots on her congressional website, and most of them were with nonnotable constituents or her meeting with the songwriter's caucus (also, nonnotable, honestly) and I forogt to check her campaign site.  If you want to whitewash her record by removing an image of her with the leader of her party, thats fine, just don't claim you were removing it because it was 'a bad picture'.  Plenty of articles have bad public domain images, its just that no one objects as so long as the picture, in hindsight, doesn't damage the honor of the subject of the article.  Let us not forget that while repeatidly removing the image from the article, this vandal was also repeatidly removing the first paragraph of text.  Perhaps they are motivated by love of marsha blackburn, but this seems like bias-motivated editing to me. Cornell Rockey 06:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The staffer removed it because including a picture of her with a now-indicted former leader of the house republicans "makes an editorial judgement" (e.g, he's saying it's not neutral). You say that removing it amounts to a whitewash. You both make a valid point. On the other hand, it *is* a crappy picture, after all, and if we can get a copyleft replacement picture, I consider that a good ending. Raul654 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Raul654, that the image was removed due to the fact that - come on now, who wants to be seen standing around with Tom DeLay. Obviously, as a Republican, Congressman Blackburn met with Tom DeLay, but she doesn't want to be seen as the lady who stands by Tom DeLay, I'm sure most Republican congresspersons have already had enough of a time getting out of such a sticky situation. MargaretZ 11:53, 24 February 2006

Southwestern citation unverified, removed

Removal of Trivia section
I recently removed the Trivia section, which contained one bullet point, and moved that information verbatim to the end of the "House career" section. The information about Rep. Blackburn being named "hottest woman in poltiics" fits in there chronologically, and is listed after other (more serious) awards.

I hope this is consistent with Wikipedia's policies discouraging trivia sections. Njm0 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Earmarks
The article cites the amount of earmarks requested by Congressman Blackburn as being perhaps contradictory to her stands against pork. This is misleading because of how earmarks work. Typically, the amount of spending in a given bill is locked in, and any portion of that fixed amount not taken up by earmarks is given to the executive branch. The amount of spending stays the same, earmarks or no; the difference is that when congressmen/women earmark the spending, the public knows exactly where the money went. For this reason, Congressman Paul of Texas has said that Congress should earmark all spending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.21.186 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Hurrican Katrina Controversy section
The link footnote provided was not inaccurate.

Even if an accurate link were provided, the statement that "We're not going to cry 'emergency' every time we have a Katrina" was, according to her spokesman, a reference to including frivolous requests for spending into spending bills that deal with true emergencies.

Furthermore, the labeling of this incident as a "controversy" is not verifiable. No reports of anyone finding this statement controversial exist.

The inclusion of this incident into the Marsha Blackburn page appears to be an attempt to create negative influence on readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.85.183 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My observation, to which I am signing my name below, is that when somebody comes along screeching that something obviously lunatic, to which someone has applied the euphemism "controversial," is not controversial, three things follow.
 * First, the screecher has made it controversial, by controverting the person first using the term; second, the screecher is almost always a tendentious rightwing nutso; and third, maybe people should baldly confess, "Yes, you're quite right, it wasn't controversial until you came along, though it is now, thank you; I was being kind."


 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Al Gore quote: "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business . . ."
There have been repeated attempts to remove this Al Gore quote. This specific quote from Gore is the sole reason why the Gore-Blackburn exchange has garnered so much publicity for the subject of this entry (Blackburn); perhaps, it has generated the most publicity she has ever received (outside of general campaign publicity). Meanwhile, some editors want to delete it and simply leave a quote from Gore that all of his proceeds have gone to the non-profit group he runs. My stance is that the most neutral, non-partisan editorial stance would be to include both quotes from Gore. The contested quote is entirely accurate. The quote apparently upsets some people, but that is not a reason to cover it up. The truth will set you free. Let the reader decide whether the quote lacks merit. Thank you.129.81.80.247 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't mean to suggest that this quote IS the subject of the article. Just to preempt any objections on such grounds, let me be clear that I understand this is a Blackburn entry.  The quote from Gore was directed at Blackburn in response to a question she asked him.  The combination of the question and answer is noteworthy as subject matter in this Congresswoman's entry. 129.81.80.247 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country [...] I am proud of it. I am proud of it." -- What does that mean? Why is this non-sensical statement notable? this is not critically commentary, but merely his opinion (or thought process). therefore this is not particularly relevant to Marsha Blackburn, and this is unnecessary. Additionally, the widely known environment, left-wing political stance is not really relevant to staunch conservative Republican, so this is not properly weighted content. --Ferrie (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I think the most neutral approach would be to include all of Gore's response to her question, or none of Gore's response. Since it looks like it will be impossible to keep the "business" response in there, I will go ahead and delete the nonprofit response as well.  That way, a curious reader and go watch the video -- and see the entirety of the response -- without allowing it to get cherry-picked here. 129.81.80.247 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tags for peacock language, facts, lack of cites, and too many inline sources
Quoting the Left Wing BBC on anything for Marsha, a Republican, is a terrible idea. Also, claiming that she dissents from Darwin is more than slightly ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.22.149 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite having zero scientific training, education, or professional experience, she's repeatedly spoken about her rejection of the theory of evolution, in particular Darwinian natural selection. So...are you claiming that she agrees with Darwin's theory, the central idea of modern biology? What evidence is there for this? Inoculatedcities (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is horribly sourced, especially for a biography of a living person. There's also too much "peacock" language. Wikipedia is a not a webhost for re-election campaigns. Please help to fix this situation. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bearian! I've removed the tags for now. There has been significant editing and I don't see any blatant peacock language at present. If you still have concerns please cite specific sections so they can be cleaned up. Regarding the sources, that's a different issue and you could tag for that if you want but please cite specific sources that are weak as there are many of them in the article. Thanks for you help in improving the article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume from the tone of pursed-lips piety fashionable around Wikipedia that "dangerous fruitcake" would not be considered a technical term, much as sane people would think it appropriate. Today she has elbowed her way onto the front pages with the news that No, she is not bothered by the upwelling of interest in her being nominated for Vice-President.


 * Oh tempore, oh mores, oi veh!


 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have received a note requesting that I withdraw any suggestion that the good Member of Congress is a "fruitcake." I hereby do so.  I make no such suggestion, and the comment above applies only to the pursed-lipped pious.  If any there be.


 * I can imagine that it might have caused distress in the baked goods industry, if they had misunderstood my remark as associating them with Congressman Blackburn. I apologise sincerely for any such upset incautiously caused.  Lordy, lordy, but they have enough to deal with, given their wedding cake problems this year.  Far be it from me to add to their troubles.


 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "She is known for her pro-life stance, her opposition to healthcare, and her opposition to same-sex marriage." She talks solely about conservative economic issues, Veterans issues, and energy. 'Opposition to healthcare'? Wow. Not even 'opposition to state healthcare', just 'opposition to healthcare'. Yeah, she's out there protesting cholesterol medicine. Get a grip. Clear peacock language. This article is a disgrace to this project.MarcelB612 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. No idea how "opposition to health care" got in there. But yeah, clearly inaccurate, unless she's converted to Christian Science recently...Marquardtika (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Marsha Blackburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090706024543/http://www.acuratings.org:80/2005all.htm to http://www.acuratings.org/2005all.htm#TN
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100115031339/http://www.acuratings.org:80/2007all.htm to http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#TN

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Checked. BrineStans (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marsha Blackburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730201058/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724155034/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/print.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/print.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Racist birther background and links
Can someone add in some background on Marsha Blackburn's links to the racist birther movement?

Is she connected or not?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/lead-birther-bill-sponsor-votes-to-recognize-hawaii-as-obama-s-birthplace

Why did she support this bill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

SHAME on you for assuming that Senator [Then U. S. Rep./TN 7th District] Marsha Blackburn is somehow racist. Is it because she was born in Miss. or is it because she has represented TN in Washington D. C. since her 2002 election? Are you simply fishing for dirt on her? This site should be deleted because this is a "Biography of Living Persons" NOT "Investigative journalism". Kilraywashere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilraywashere (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The original comment is over 2 years old. At the time [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marsha_Blackburn&diff=800221460&oldid=798906619], our article had zero mention of her co-sponsoring that bill. Our current version [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marsha_Blackburn&oldid=931778756#Birther_bill], does a decent job of explaining her involvement in the bill, and why it was controversial. While the OP's comment may not have been as well articulated as we would like, it seems fair enough for them to point out that at that time in 2017, our article was lacking in a certain area. Note that while we do not engage in investigative journalism on wikipedia, if something is well covered in reliable secondary sources, there may be merit to mention it in our articles, while considering the limits imposed by WP:UNDUE etc. If an editor believes something is well covered in such sources, but isn't mention in our article, then it's fair enough that they mention this. Although per WP:SOFIXIT comments will often result in no action, unless they're lucky and someone who has the time tries to fix it. (This seems to be the case here, since I see no evidence the change was made because of the editor's comment.) So it's often better if they try to fix it themselves. It does not matter if the info is positive, negative or neutral.  As for the racism part, while BLP applies everyone on wikipedia, I don't think someone simply saying that the conspiracy theories were racist when commenting on her involvement is sufficient to raise BLP issues, since frankly they often were and we should allow some latitude on editor's opinions coming across in their comments.  This does not mean that her involvement was in any way borne out of racism, and our article should not, and does not, say anything about racism unless it is well supported by reliable secondary sources. If an editor had explicitly accused her of racism without any evidence it's supported in reliable secondary sources, I would have removed that even after 2 years.  Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent Edits
A recent edit removed the fact that Blackburn's statement in 2015 regarding cooling of the earth's temperature was over the prior 13 years and that data indicates that the temperature has not significantly increased or decreased.

A second edit by the same editor removed reliably sourced content from the Wall Street Journal regarding the DEA legislation. It also re-inserted a reference to fines, which was not the subject of the legislation. The legislation changed the ability of the DEA to stop shipments, not fine.

The edit summaries for these edits don't support the changes.Amberwaves (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The WSJ is a RS. The editorial board is not. Does the op-ed even mention Blackburn? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
This article looks to have some serious POV problems. I've removed some particularly glaring examples, such as "Blackburn co-sponsored legislation that limited the ability of the Drug Enforcement Administration to combat the opioid epidemic" and "Blackburn voted in favor of the reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act in the House, but voted against the Senate version because the legislation provided additional protections for victims of violence that were LGBT, Native American, or immigrants." But the fundamental issue is that "political positions" is just a list of all the things the subject has said that have been criticized, worded in pretty non-neutral ways--in other words, it sounds almost like a "controversies" section. I think the article needs some serious cleanup; if it's going to describe her positions at all, I think a more objective and balanced treatment is necessary. Larpeel82 (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While I certainly think the article could be improved, I don't think the NPOV tag is appropriate, especially without more clear pointing out of specific problems. I don't know Blackburn's record well enough to say whether the page is not sufficiently balanced. What is missing from here or portrayed incorrectly? Without more specifics I think we should remove the tag. Perhaps things were worse back in January-- I just read over the page now. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A sentence regarding what Blackburn said re climate
I partially undid this insertion by Snooganssnoogans which added the sentence Blackburn falsely asserted that there is "not consensus" in the scientific community on climate change, and that climate change remains "unproven". We have a transcript showing what Blackburn actually said. She didn't definitely say that it's climate change that there's "not consensus" on, she might have been referring to its cause or to recent storms. She didn't say climate change is "unproven", she said "you don’t make good laws, sustainable laws when you’re making them on hypotheses or theories or unproven sciences". And of course the word "falsely" wasn't in the cited sources. Once the misrepresentations of her statements are removed there's nothing notable left. I also restored the wording of the original link to "scientific opinion on climate change". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * She literally says there's "not consensus" and literally says "unproven", both in regards to climate change. If you lack the reading comprehension to decipher the fairly rudimentary statements in the transcript, you can see that NBC simply summarizes her views at the top as "Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn, who calls climate science "unproven."" Per WP:FRINGE, we are required to describe her views here as contrary to mainstream science, even if sources do not explicitly describe things like creationism and climate change denial as false and fringe. Note however that the NBC interview makes clear that there is a scientific consensus on climate change, so her arguments that there is non consensus is clearly false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Source for more information
I don't have the time to sort through and add this myself right now, but looks like this article might have information which should be added to the page. Hope someone else can beat me to it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/tennessee-governor-blackburn-bredesen.html -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Evolution
Per BBC News, she rejects the theory of evolution. This is something that numerous editors keep trying to remove from the article. They can explain why below. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Allegations of falsehood is not encyclopedic"
An editor insists that it would be contrary to Wikipedia policy to describe a claim as "false" even though reliable source describe the claim as false. This is not a correct understanding of Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know this is from years ago, but I was also just reverted for labelling a false statement of her's as bring such. Of 19 (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Claim that Blackburn smeared Lindzen and Curry
Bneu2013 inserted this statement: "In the debate she also incorrectly cited the works of Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry as denial of the science of climate change." What Blackburn actually said according to the transcript was "Now, there is not consensus and you can look at the latest IPCC Report and look at Doctor Lindzen from MIT. His rejection of that or Judith Curry who recently…" She appears to be saying that Lindzen disagrees with the IPCC Report, and that one should "look at" Curry. I reverted, Bneu2013 quickly re-inserted (disregard of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE seems to be normal for this page), and I bring it here to see to see whether anyone else can see that Blackburn said Lindzen and Curry deny the science of climate change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interview she seems to be stating that Lindzen and Curry outright deny the science of anthropogenic global warming, which is not true. Both scientist have been critical of climate alarmism and catastrophic global warming, but do not deny that global warming is a result of human activity. See List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Also, we should probably mention that Blackburn appears in Koch Brothers Exposed. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else see that Blackburn said Lindzen and Curry deny the science of climate change.? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019
A reference needs to be archived, specifically, the in the LGBT rights section which cites the web page "https://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397760". The archive-url is http://web.archive.org/web/20150628215902/https://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397760 and the archive-date is 2015-06-28.

Also, you know, maybe unprotect this page. 123.201.227.192 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've added the archived link, thanks for that. Requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection. NiciVampireHeart 00:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 219.91.238.65 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Nici<b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 19:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Showing ID when filing for federal office
Snooganssnoogans made this edit which included the words "The spokesperson inaccurately suggested that Obama had not provided any documents to prove he was a natural-born citizen." But the cited blog source quotes the spokesperson as saying: "[A number of her constituents] are equally surprised that she has never had to offer any identifying documents when she has filed for federal office ...". Marsha Blackburn is a "she", Barack Obama is not. I removed the contentious poorly sourced sentence. The rest of the section (calling it a birther bill, referencing conspiracy theories, saying sponsored rather than co-sponsored, omitting what the spokesperson said was the reasoning) may be biased but I left it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content, removal of sourced labels
An editor keeps deleting the politician's stance on not allowing people to choose for themselves to have abortions or not. They also keep re-adding "claim" despite WP:CLAIM, they need to come to the talk page and stop edit warring. Of 19 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , You are the one edit warring. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires that contested material can not be reinserted without consensus. Please self-revert now. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So I can delete anything I want to one this page and you can't restore? Of 19 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , If there's no prior consensus then you can delete contentious material in a BLP, but only for good-faith reasons. Please self-revert. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you not presenting your argument for removal of the added information? We can't move forward if you just revert and don't talk. Of 19 (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , How am I not talking? The WP:ONUS is on you to present your arguments on why the material should be kept. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're only talking meta, if you read the policy you link to you will see it is about proving the truth of the statement it's not carte blanche to remove WP:WHATYOUDON'TLIKE. Of 19 (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, I'm removing material that violates WP:NPOV. This is a non-neutral edit not supported by the cited NY Times article:, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I realize being productive may be difficult for you and deleting is fun, so I've come up with a compromise for you. Of 19 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please observe WP:NPA. Comment on the content--not the contributor Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I must have missed your attempt to post a compromise, I only saw reverts. Of 19 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can't compromise with a WP:POV edit. That violates policy. Please, next time, if you make a bold edit and get reverted, do not revert that revert. Start a talk page discussion and do not reinsert your edit until you have consensus (and do not threaten people with blocks). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Too long.
This article is too long; that circumstance can be cured by removing minor points, especially about other people; for example, the other candidates in her bids for election. That will make a more serviceable article for our readers. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as too long .. much is charts, etc, and without those its size is fine. But in any case, it doesn't need the templates IMHO. And they are redundant in scope, so I'll remove one. --2603:7000:2143:8500:2924:7394:A412:F884 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Two problems
This article has a few unnecessary citations, and has promotional tone.

Taylor Swift
Mention Swift in the article. Luke99108 (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned in the U.S. Senate section. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

POV distortion of sources
Recently three of my edits to correct some biased wording not supported by the cited sources were reverted, with scant explanation, by Binksternet. I'll start with the only one he specifically comments on, found in the section on Blackburn's posture toward Trump.

I changed "In November 2019, #MoscowMarcia started trending on Twitter after Blackburn tweeted a conspiratorial smear against    Vindman on her Twitter account." to "... after Blackburn tweeted an accusation against Vindman on her Twitter account."

As explained in my edit comment, the source doesn't describe Blackburn's tweet as anything close to a "a conspiratorial smear". The closest it gets to that is to say that Blackburn "'took a shot' at a key figure in the impeachment inquiry ..." Unlike "accusation", "smear" is clearly a pejorative not based on the source being used. It doesn't matter that Binksternet thinks that "an accusation is explicit but a "smear" is implication, which Blackburn employed" because an editor has no right to distort the content of the source. For those who might argue that even "accusation" distorts the source (as Binksternet seems to) that objection can easily be satisfied by simply saying:

In November 2019 #MoscowMarcia started trending on Twitter after Blackburn tweeted "Vindictive Vindman is the whistleblower's      handler" on her Twitter account. That's enough for now. I'll get to the other reverts later. Goodtablemanners (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Newsweek quoted US Naval War College professor Tom Nichols who called Blackburn's action a "smear". The Week went one better, putting "conspiratorial smear" into their headline. So did Mediaite, consistently calling Blackburn's action a smear. The American Independent also said that Blackburn attacked Vindman with a smear. The Washington Post called Blackburn's action "flimsy allegations to impugn Alexander Vindman". They called the tweet an "attack". Vindman's lawyer called it "defamatory" and "slander". Maria Cardona called Blackburn's action a "smear" in the piece she wrote for The Hill. There is plenty of support for the word "smear" in the media. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Great! Then (a.) Cite those sources for the material on Blackburn's Vindman tweet, rather than a source that doesn't use the term "smear" at all, and (b.) tell the reader that this is their opinion i.e. "a number of media observers described the tweet as a smear against a patriotic soldier", or some such construction. I would avoid citing Vindman's lawyer however, lawyers get paid to say things like that. Thanks for the response. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading "fact"
In the "Abortion and stem cell research" section under the heading "Political positions", I changed "Twitter banned the advertisement on its platform because of her false assertion about the sale of body parts" to "Twitter banned the advertisement on its platform, calling her assertion "inflammatory" and "likely to evoke a strong negative reaction" because Twitter's statement used these exact words, not something like "her claims are false". On further review both versions are quite misleading. That's because Twitter did not ban Blackburn's ad but only the brief "inflammatory" part of it, and that brief part of it for a single day. Banned on Monday back on Tuesday! See . Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC) This leads to the question of whether the Twitter so-called ban should even be mentioned in the article. It seems to me it would be better to simply note that Blackburn ran an ad about shutting down the sale of body parts after it was determined that body parts hadn't been sold in the first place. Goodtablemanners (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Overly pat representation of source
The last sentence of the second paragraph under "Abortion and stem cell research" reads "In 2015, Blackburn claimed that 94% of Planned Parenthood's business revolves around abortion services; FactCheck.org noted that abortions account for 3% of the total services Planned Parenthood provided in 2013 and that most of Planned Parenthood's work is dedicated to treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, pregnancy tests, prenatal services, and cancer screenings". This would be fine for a Democratic or Planned Parenthood response to Blackburn's assertion but the FactCheck source is appreciably more nuanced. In reference to the 94% figure (either for total service or "pregnancy services") FactCheck says "the fact is no one can say for sure what the percentage is". It also says that "critics of the 3 percent figure note that an abortion isn't equivalent to other individual services, such as giving out condoms or providing prenatal tests". In other words, it's suggesting that the actual time, effort, and expense that goes into providing abortions is actually significantly greater than the 3 percent figure for total services. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is immediately obvious is that Blackburn was very, very wrong, no matter how you slice the FactCheck findings. That's the takeaway. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, what is "immediately obvious", perhaps. What is only slightly less obvious is that FactCheck is not actually checking the three percent figure given out by Planned Parenthood but simply accepting it. More importantly, FactCheck is definitely not saying "most of Planned Parenthood's work is dedicated to the treatment, of sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, pregnancy tests, prenatal services, and cancer screenings". That's where the unwarranted public relations stuff comes in. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This biography doesn't need to investigate the details; such an investigation would best be conducted elsewhere. The point stands, that Blackburn was very wrong about Planned Parenthood. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're making my point. Talking about how "most of Planned Parenthood's work is dedicated to" a litany of things other than abortion is gratuitous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtablemanners (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)  In denying Blackburn's "fact" we shouldn't go out of our way to endorse Planned Parenthood's. At just about the same time as the FactCheck article appeared Michelle Ye Hee Lee in the Washington Post gave both the 94 percent figure and the 3 percent figure three Pinocchios . Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this far-right label well-sourced?
The article mentions two times that Blackburn has or has endorsed far-right positions. (See WP:Label).


 * In the introduction, it says "...has endorsed far-right positions"


 * In the section on political positions, it says, "...and has endorsed far-right positions."


 * To substantiate this label, both phrases go to the same two citations, which are these:


 * * Taylor Swift’s Music Label Gives Big to Her Political Nemesis, The Daily Beast
 * * Blackburn listed as speaker for events organized by anti-Muslim activist; aide says she didn't attend The Tennesseean

According to Reliable sources/Perennial sources, relative to the first source above (The Daily Beast), "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons."

When I look at The Tennesseean link from above, it doesn't say she is of the far-right. It says that she "met with leaders of a far-right Austrian political party", "met with members of Austria’s Freedom Party, a far-right political party" and "Posing with Blackburn and King are Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache and others from the Austrian political party, including Norbert Hofer, a far-right candidate who unsuccessfully ran for president of Austria in 2016." (Those were the only references in that article that I could find that used the phrase "far-right"). Beingafactoid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strawman - It does not LABEL her far right. It says exactly what the RS Tennessean says -- she supports far-right narratives. There is no LABEL such as we do find in some far-right figures' BLPs.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a LABEL problem here. The source says she supports far-right narratives, and that's what SPECIFICO wrote. She's not being labeled.
 * It's also very true. She definitely supports far-right narratives and even bat-shit crazy conspiracy theory narratives. SPECIFICO is being kind. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Beingafactoid, I agree, the Tennessean does not call her far right. So I'd call it worthless as a source for "endorsed far-right positions". For the other cite I'd say that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should be followed if there is some reason to think it's worthy of note. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly read the cited source and my edit summary before posting. Really, I must ask you now to review both of those and to review this thread, post by post, and to consider whether your message above is constructive.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did read the cited source, then I agreed. I've also seen your edit summary in one of the re-insertions of contentious material that are being made in this BLP: ... Please read the cited sources before editing. Tennesseean says "When she speaks, as she did last week, she hits every far-right, culture war talking point, from human trafficking and pedophiles to claims of violent prisoners being released into an unsuspecting population." This RS specifically Verifies that she has "endorsed far-right positions ... I don't see those quoted words in the cited Tennessean source. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP paraphrases, it doen't cut and paste verbatim copyright violations all over the place. If you think the text would be better saying she hits or spouts or voices instead of "endorsed", let's hear from you what's the distinction and why you think the meaning is unfaithful to the multiple RS that have been cited.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The Chattanooga Times Free Press described Blackburn as far right in their editorial "There's a dark, growing drumbeat in far-right politics". The far right politicians discussed in that piece are Blackburn, Bill Hagerty, Chuck Fleischmann, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz. Similarly, in the Memphis Daily News, political science scholar Kent Syler was quoted describing Blackburn's far right stance: "Her strategy is to get so far to the right that no one can get to the right of her". The online magazine Queerty wrote that Blackburn is "the antigay, far-right U.S. senator from Tennessee". Other sources say she is the "most conservative" woman politician in the US, meaning she is the farthest to the right. We have multiple sources to label Blackburn far right. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. Farthest to the right sounds like she's also right wing.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorsing some far right positions does not entail that all or most of her views fall in the far right of the political spectrum. Blackburn is clearly not right of center, but also not Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert. Her positions, with a few exceptions, are largely in line with that of the GOP in general. I would support labeling her positions as "hard right", but not in the first sentence. This is largely the position on the political spectrum of the GOP from a worldwide perspective. I will also point out that the Times Free Press article is an opinion piece written by the paper's liberal commentator (the paper has a liberal and conservative commentary on its opinion pages). Bneu2013 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The text that editors are reverting to reinstate doesn’t appear in any of the cited sources, which are poor to begin with. We need better sourcing than an online magazine named Queerty for BLP claims made in Wikivoice. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the news items being used are quite loosely written with a lot of opinionated wording. Just my take on it, but what really annoys liberals about Blackburn isn't that she "endorses far-right positions" but rather that her political positions are so uniformly conservative on every issue. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , this removal of yours is tendentious editing. You come here complaining about Queerty magazine but it wasn't used on the page. What used was Memphis Daily News, a piece by veteran reporter Sam Stockard of Nashville quoting political science professor Kent Syler who says Blackburn's strategy is to get as far right as possible, so that nobody can challenge her as being more right wing. So we have a mainstream media source and a topic scholar establishing Blackburn's place on the left–right continuum. Your place is to properly summarize this assessment for the Wikipedia reader. It is not your job to remove such well-founded analysis. There was no BLP violation; it is disruptive of you to claim such. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There’s 4 editors in this section who have explained the issues with the text you are trying to insert. The sources don’t make the claims you’re trying to present in Wikivoice. There’s clearly no consensus here for it. The onus is on you to get consensus to insert challenged content. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fallacy; you are using argument from authority to resist change. The sources say exactly what has been summarized. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If there were any shred of a BLP violation, we would not see this being edit-warred out with the alternate claim of "no consensus". It reminds me of Kellyanne Conway's "alternate facts", See WP:CRYBLP. And once again, we don't use the exact words in our sources. Otherwise WP would be as big as the internet. We paraphrase the WEIGHT of RS, which has been amply documented in top-quality sources from the journalists and others who cover her constantly and closely.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Surely you realize that the Memphis Daily News source doesn't say what you want it to say. The professor says that Blackburn tries to get as far to the right "as possible", not that she "endorses far-right positions". Presumably, she gets as far to the right as possible AND STILL WIN ELECTIONS in a moderate Southern state. One can probably do that by taking consistently conservative positions but probably not by taking consistently "far-right" positions. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's one possible interpretation, but it's not explicitly stated. As far as being moderate, the last three Democratic presidential nominees winning Tennessee were Southern boys: Clinton, Carter and LBJ. Every other presidential election has seen Tennessee go Republican since Ike in 1952. The idea that Tennessee is moderate is outdated; the state has experienced hard polarization in the 21st century. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * More pertinently, "far right" isn't explicitly stated by the source. Incidentally, Bill Clinton and the 1990s doesn't feel like ancient history to me. Sure, politics generally has become even more polarized in this century, but Blackburn would not be winning elections there by running on a return to Jim Crow or a complete dismantling of the welfare state. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Tennessee is deep in the heart of Dixie -- among the leaders in unremoved Confederate monuments, proud home of Andrew Jackson whose slave quarters are carefully maintained in his plantation for public tours, and the source says nothing about being exquisitely nuanced just far enough to the right to beat the commie democrats. Your uninformed opinion about nonexistent progressive tendencies in the present day Republican electorate are irrelevant.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the uninformed one, Buddy. Jackson was a much admired President among liberal historians for many years because, for them, he represented the "common man" and because he stood up to Calhoun and South Carolina's nullification of the tariff. Tennessee has never been considered a "Deep South" state. As for the source in question, as noted before, it says that she gets as far to the right as she can, not that she endorses "far right" positions. Go read some history. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And that's why the slave quarters were lovingly visited by pilgrims to his plantation last Thursday?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

And, of course, only racists would ever visit slave quarters at an historic site. Goodtablemanners (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Returning to the notion that Blackburn must appeal to "moderate" Tennessee in order to win elections, there isn't a single source saying she follows such a strategy. Rather, she is an integral part of the last two decades of deepening political polarization in Tennessee, and she focuses only on conservative voters. Jackson Baker in Memphis magazine says she avoids compromise. NBC News said in 2018 that her appeal was strictly to conservative voters—she's on the Trump Train. Politico said she won her Senate race by hyping partisan conservative issues, not by appealing to moderates in a state that was turning more conservative. Time magazine said that the few moderates in Tennessee voted for her opponent. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And none of the stuff you're presenting above really contradicts what I've said. "Conservative" isn't the same as "far-right". She is consistently very conservative; perhaps because she is, well, very conservative. It's also won her plenty of votes. I have my own ideas on the political polarization that's taken place in recent years, my "original speculation" on the subject. I think that it has less to do with those on the right moving farther to the right than it has to do with those on the left moving farther to the left. In short, people on the left today "endorse positions", particularly on social issues, that most moderate liberals 50 years ago would not have even thought of endorsing. Goodtablemanners (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant part of the polarization discussion is that Blackburn is not looking to grab moderate votes, likely because the right wing in Tennessee has increased in size and moved farther rightward. Your personal assessment conflicts with scholarly consensus, as most political scientists agree that the USA has polarized asymmetrically, with the right side moving substantially rightward. "By 2000, Republicans had become more conservative than Democrats were liberal." After 2000, led by the same kind of polarization at the state level, the country was further polarized by rightward shifts on the right. Nothing comparable can be said about the left moving leftward. It's amazing to me that you would offer up the contrary idea as your experience. In any case, sources talk about Blackburn aiming directly at her conservative constituents, with no need to moderate her message for everybody else. She's as far right wing as she can get in Tennessee. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This back and forth is fun for me but not especially relevant. Wikipedia doesn't have enough to go on to cast Blackburn as far-right. Very conservative, yes; but not far right. It's equally amazing to me for you not to see (for I get the impression that you are old enough) to realize that a liberal Democratic base which embraces same-sex marriage, abortion rights (Dems used to be divided on the issue), gender free or gender preferred pronouns, and hyper-sensitivity on matters of expression (liberal Democrats used to embrace free speech), is vastly different from the one you remember as a kid. Incidentally, you say that Blackburn is "as far right as you can get in Tennessee". I'm not sure of that because she won election to the Senate quite handily in 2018. More than 10 percentage points. So perhaps she could become even more conservative and still win. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Far right is not on a continuum with Conservative. Far right has nothing in common with Conservatism, and RS tell us -- as this article details -- neither does Blackburn.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Odd that you say that now SPECIFICO, since you said in your most recent edit to the article: "Her right-wing political stance positions her as the most conservative American congresswoman." But how could it, if "far right is not on a continuum with conservative?" Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't generally respond to lies or trolling. FYI for anyone who may be reading this: In my last edit, I undid an egregious, recently added POV MOS:EASTEREGG link that replaced straightforward text (right or wrong) with a highly misleading and erroneous meaning. I merely reverted to longstanding text without any comment as to its merits.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, surely you can tell me three far-right political positions that she has endorsed. I've heard many times that she embraces far right positions, so which ones are they? Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "likely because the right wing in Tennessee has increased in size and moved farther rightward" That the far right is alive and well in Tennessee seems relevant to the article on the state, not to Blackburn's biography. Could we summarize her political positions instead of fixating on where they fit on the political spectrum? Dimadick (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have opposed the undue use of labels on many article pages. I think they are prone to misinterpretation by our readers. Unfortunately, this article quotes her self-describing as a "conservative" without placing that claim in the context of facts and arm's-length evaluations that would balance it. Many far-right or alt-right or right wing politicians claim to be conservatives, wrapping themselves in the proud and glorious mantles of the Reagan/Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney heritage, while RS reject that claim. Some day we'll have a site-wide discussion and guideline about this to avoid the dozens of threads like this one.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the conversation. I was on vacation. Hard to exactly follow the changes made to the page itself but it seems to be more accurate and reliably sourced now. Beingafactoid (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Mary" Marsha Blackburn
Are there any sources or info about Senator Blackburn's first name being Mary? The only rationale I could find for that being true is being named after her mother. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Actual Abortion Comment from FactNet
“The fact is, no one can say for sure what the percentage is.” Easeltine (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

See the #68 Reference by FactNet on the 94% claim. Easeltine (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)