Talk:Michele Bachmann

Charter School paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above discussion was resurrected on 7/6/2011 Dpky (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I plan to delete the readded phrase about Parents complaints about the charter school. The new sources give no better attribution to the complaints than the old sources and seem to be a new attempt by some media outlets to resurrect the story. It comes down to how much weight is given to a quote from a parent or two who were either not cited by name or when they were cited by name the quote is taken TWELVE YEARS after the fact. Since the discussion was deleted, I can see how someone may see this story reprinted as if it is new and then insert it as if it is new to this article. Dpky (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The names of the parents and the age of the story are immaterial. These facts are reported by reliable sources and there's no reason to doubt their accuracy. Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

These "facts" were not reported as facts. They are reported as the recolection and point of view of one parent TWELVE YEARS later. So, yes, it does matter what the original source of information is from. Otherwise, you end up with undo weight being given to the POV of an annonymous person who's opinion cannot be said to be noteworthy. The latest source provided is simply a rerun of earlier recycled reports. 72.49.155.225 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The view that these complaints came from "one parent twelve years later" is not accurate. It is clear from the sources that there were multiple complaints and that these complaints originated at the time she was at the school. Gamaliel (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two citations currently. The first citation only says "She helped found a charter school that briefly ran afoul of the state when some parents contended that its curriculum was infused with Christian teachings". The second citation only says, "She helped found a charter school but soon left the board amid allegations that she was trying to inject Christianity into the curriculum". Both of these articles were published in June of 2011. Her time with the charter school was in 1993. Both of these citations are articles aimed at painting MB in a negative light and are not actual first hand reports of facts discovered by their own inquiry. Rather, they are partisan rehashings of older reports. This story stems from an article by G.R. Andersen on Oct 4, 2006 (The Chosen One) in which he relies entirely on the recollection of the one parent named Denise Stephens. Furthermore, in a 2011 Star Tribune article by Kevin Diaz (Outsider From The Start) we see that Denise Stephens was a political operative for MB's oponent at the time. I do not think that political hit pieces should be relied upon as sources for Wikipedia. Also, the two current citations do not cite any specific source (such as someone they interviewed or state records) so I think that makes them unverifiable.

Please try to find verifiable sources without undue weight before reposting the "controversy" phrase. Thank You Dpky (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no indication from either source that they relied on City Pages or Denise Stephens, so that is purely your own speculation. Again, it is clear from both sources that there were multiple complaints, and their coverage is not limited to those sentences you cite. The fact that these articles are from 2011 and describe events in 1993 is immaterial. Gamaliel (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To help determine a reporter's source, I look for distinct yet simular language in reports. The original 2006 reporting says, " SHE HELPED to start a Stillwater charter school that RAN AFOUL of many parents and the local school board when it became apparent that the school—which received public money and therefore was bound to observe the legal separation of church and state—was INJECTing Christain elements into the curriculum"

The round of reporting in June 2011 was worded "SHE HELPED found a charter school but soon left the board amid allegations that she was trying to INJECT Christianity into the curriculum" and "SHE HELPED found a charter school that briefly RAN AFOUL of the state when some parents contended that its curriculum was infused with Christian teachings". While this alone does not prove 100% that they relied on Andersen's reporting, I do think it is enough for us to question what their source is. Is their source this one parent's recolection TWELVE YEARS later who happened to be an opperative of MB's political oponent at the time of her 2006 recolection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs) 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the smoking gun? Sorry, we cannot reject a completely reliable source solely based on tenuous speculation regarding similar uses of basic common English words. Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dpky, I'm trying to imagine a way in which your independent investigation claiming to reveal that a primary source quoted in a newspaper article was actually a "political operative" for Bachmann's opponent and thus that the article quoting her should be discredited, or your claim that we should "question" the use of a newspaper article because you say it appears to have relied upon another newspaper article, is in some way consistent with Wikipedia policy. But it's not. Not even close. Furthermore, your apparent belief that a newspaper article that doesn't explicitly name every single source it uses, is thereby "unverifiable", belies a total lack of understanding of basic WP policy. The list goes on; you complain about one newspaper's "unattributed remarks"; you claim it is "not reporting consensus", supposedly because it "describes itself as alternative"; you say that the fact that one source doesn't mention any controversy somehow proves that there was no controversy(!); you explicitly say that a source is making claims that can't be "verified" because you say "the source is a biased opinion that cites unidentifyable sources"; you even say that where a reporter does explicitly attribute claims to the source he's citing, that shows he could not "verify" the claims of the source!

This is all absurd and we're past AGF. It's clear you have no understanding of the policies you are naming. Based on this, I question whether anyone ought to even bother reading what you post on talk pages before reverting your edits, since it's all apparently stuff you just made up. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Negative View

Although the views are all cited in this article, it seems to me to be very biased and I think a lot of it needs to be re written. Many of the quotes and views seem to reflect Ms. Bachmann in a negative light. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or is it just me? Mikist4 (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's rather obvious. And the article is overlong as well, going into a level of detail in at least 2/3 of the "political position" type sections that is inappropriate and unnecessary. It could be significantly shortened and made much better. As you note, probably nothing is inaccurate; but presented and edited in such a way as to leave the reader with a negative view of Bachmann. That's a common problem with Wikipedia, of course. Perhaps a more neutral administrator will take it upon themself to both clean up the verbosity and take down the POV a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.90.86 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Examples:

1. The paragraph on Foreign Policy contains only a reference to her stance on Iran and possible use of nuclear weapons there. There are a few other contemporary issues worth noting, so to focus on Iran is needlessly limited. And it is incomplete to suggest that her only concern is to potentially "drop the big one" on another country.
2. Another paragraph mentions her support for a "controversial" group. This is editorializing. Let people decide for themselves what is controversial. Milkchaser (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mikist4. The article is biased and includes all sorts of stuff that is hand picked by liberals to make Michele sound like some kind of ignorant moron. Not too surprising considering it's wikipedia.Mardiste (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing stopping you making constructive edits to improve the article! Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

of course its biased, as are majority of WP articles on anything political. love the section "Repeal of Patient Protection and Affordable care Act" - uh, i guess you mean "Obamacare", which is what everyone on the planet calls it along with Bachmann although some "editor" here wants to single her out, lol. WP is fast becoming a joke because of the slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.4.220 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate LLM Information?

William and Mary Law School does not offer an LLM in taxation. Their only LLM is a degree in American law for students trained at foreign law schools.

Tom Shafer97.82.61.161 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating, in relation to Bachmann, that this was the case 23 years ago? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It has since been shown that at the time she was going to school there, they did offer the degree, so this is a non-issue and can be disregarded. --Catonsunday (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Catonsunday: do you have any citations to back that assertion? I have been googling every variation I can think of, and I am trained in legal research and on-line searching, and I cannot find even one entry that supports that claim. A failure to find anything is not dispositive, but a claim with citation doesnt mean much at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjw918 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rjw918: Your l33t legal research and on-line searching skills apparently do not include going to the William & Mary law school website and searching for "taxation". Here's an online brochure from 1988 which gives details on page 24 about their LL M in Tax Law: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=brochure A little more searching discovers they started the program in 1954 and ended it in 1995. Agarvin (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

jftr, another citation from W&M, specific to Bachmann (June 28, 2011), is here. 75.60.16.184 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know to what state Bars she has been admitted for practice? Is there such as thing as a Federal Tax Bar and was she admitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.188.71 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 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, June 14, 2011

Bachmann's story about reading Gore Vidal

Here is a link to an article that talks about a completely different account she gave in 2004 and 2005 about why she became a Republican.

Quote: Bachmann, 48, grew up in Waterloo, Iowa; both parents were Democrats. She says she realized she was a Republican during her college days while riding an Amtrak train from the metro area to Winona State University.

"I was reading a book, '1876' by Gore Vidal, and what he was writing about just didn't ring true," she said. "I remember thinking, 'You are such a fraud. What you're writing about isn't true,' and I remember looking out the window and thinking 'Am I becoming a Republican?' "

I'm a little new to the editing, but while writing an article on her, this came up. I thought it should be recognized as another version of the story that she told.

--Catonsunday (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd characterize that as "a completely different account"; the circumstances, time frame, overall thought process, and offending author are all the same. Yes, the books were set several decades apart, but one was a sequel written soon after the other, they were both themed on the building of the nation, and they shared some characters; remembering the incorrect title – whichever it was – 30 years later doesn't seem like that big a deal. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so much that it would be a big deal, but if we are going to be presenting factual information here, it seems that if you are going to include one account, both should be put in. It isn't about being a big deal if she forgot - it is about representing this in a manner that makes sure that no facts are ignored. Since she told both stories, it would seem strange not to include both, unless there was a bias. --Catonsunday (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the degree by which similarities outweigh differences, including alternate versions of the quotations in the body of the article seems unnecessarily nit-picky. Since we're not sure which of the two novels is correct, how about substituting paraphrase for direct quotation, saying she was reading one of Gore Vidal's historical novels when... yada yada. The fact that she cited different titles on different occasions could be added to the footnote for the paragraph, with both sources shown as citations. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the consensus here is. Declined for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 29 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, June 19, 2011

Hiding in the Bushes

The newest attack on Bachmann is the 7 year old so called controversy about hiding in the bushes. This is nothing more than a political attack being brought back from the dead now that she is getting more attention. The source is the liberal Daily Beast trying to make political hay about an event years ago. Almost the whole section was written in ad hominen format and has almost no other reliable sources that are easily checked. It is a BLP violation to make the statement that she was photographed "hiding" in the bushes. Most disturbing is that an admin would add such crap. Arzel (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This incident was well covered in the Minnesota media, so better sources should be available from local Minnesota news sources, newspapers, City Pages, Almanac (local PBS political coverage), and the public radio news channel MPR. The material does make a citation from the Pioneer Press, so if an editor wishes to include the information, additional sources should be available and used to replace the citations from the Daily Beast. Arzel goes a bit far in declaring things a "hatchet job" and "crap", when all that was necessary was to point out the Daily Beast is not considered a reliable source under wiki policies.Wowaconia (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken. I have revised the title and stuck the word. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation of Gossip Story:

Is it proper to cite a gossip story? The paragraph about Bachmann being photographed crouching has a citation of an article from a Star Tribune Gossip columnist. Should the citation be removed? Dpky (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, another citation from the same paragraph refers to an AP story that provides the Bachmann quote from a Star Tribune story. Anybody able to locate the original Star Tribune story from 2005? Dpky (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Gay rights incidents

• In April 2005, Bachmann was photographed crouching behind some bushes observing a gay rights rally at the state capitol and left when spotted. She said she wasn't hiding behind the bushes, but was resting feet sore from high heels. The following week, at a constituent forum in Scandia, Minnesota, when asked about gay marriage during a question and answer session, Bachmann left the meeting twenty minutes early. When two women, one a former nun, asked Bachmann questions in the women's restroom, Bachmann screamed "Help! I'm being held against my will!" and fled in tears. She filed a police report but no charges were filed, with the county attorney concluding that the women "simply wanted to discuss certain issues further" with Bachmann.

This material was deleted with an edit summary of:

• Political revisionist history for political attack removed. Undue weight, little RS available to check, partisan primary source. Largely ad hominen. WP:BLP WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV [1]

That's quite a variety of policy violations for a short, well-sourced passage. I don't see how this is revionist - could someone explain? The sources seem fine. I'm not sure what it is ad hominem about reporting incidents from the subject's life. BLP does not seem to apply since the sources are adequate - is there some other reason? How does it fail NPOV and how is it undue weight? I've restored it because these do not seem to be valid complaints.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it will take some explaining to justify how those incidents are noteworthy enough to include in the context of Bachmann's life overall. I'm moderately informed about Bachmann, but don't see gay rights as the defining issue for her. I haven't checked the various sources, but one titled "Bachmann's Unrivaled Extremism" doesn't sound too objective. Incidentally, I question whether the Rolling Stone reference by Matt Taibbi is enough of a "high quality" source to use in a BLP. Taibbi is clearly a liberal muckraker (and that's how the New York Times describes him). It may better be classified as an opinion piece with reporting than a straight reporting piece. Drrll (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone has a good reputation for reporting, even political reporting. Smoe of the most famous journalists have been muckrakers. The Daily Beast is a subsidiary of Newsweek. The local Star Tribune is a mainstream newspaper. Opposition to gay rights has been a key plank in the subject's platform. So I don't see how BLP issues come into play, since it's well-sourced.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The piece in Rolling Stone by Taibbi sure reads like an opinion piece and opinion pieces are not good sources to use for a BLP:

Don't laugh. It may be the hardest thing you ever do, for Michele Bachmann is almost certainly the funniest thing that has ever happened to American presidential politics...Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions...Michele Bachmann, when she turns her head toward the cameras and brandishes her pearls and her ageless, unblemished neckline and her perfect suburban orthodontics in an attempt to reassure the unbeliever of her non-threateningness, is one of the scariest sights in the entire American cultural tableau. She's trying to look like June Cleaver, but she actually looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo...In modern American politics, being the right kind of ignorant and entertainingly crazy is like having a big right hand in boxing; you've always got a puncher's chance. And Bachmann is exactly the right kind of completely batshit crazy. Not medically crazy, not talking-to-herself-on-the-subway crazy, but grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy — crazy in the sense that she's living completely inside her own mind, frenetically pacing the hallways of a vast sand castle she's built in there, unable to meaningfully communicate with the human beings on the other side of the moat, who are all presumed to be enemies.

If an article in the WSJ editorial pages that includes reporting is considered to be not adequate as a source, I sure don't see how that piece could be.

I don't have any problem with the Minneapolis Star Tribune or the Saint Paul Pioneer Press sources, and I don't have a problem in general with The Daily Beast, just with an article with that kind of title ("Bachmann's Unrivaled Extremism"). Even with the local papers reporting some of these incidents, I don't see how that makes them noteworthy overall in the life of Bachmann. BTW, I'd like to see a good source that says that "opposition to gay rights has been a key plank in the subject's platform." I sure don't remember her bringing up the subject in interviews I've seen/heard. Drrll (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that this is now a purely political issue. The fact that it is getting a bunch of press in 2011, years after the fact, shows just how much of a partisan issue it is. TPM and TDB are both very liberal publications, and it is only being promoted right now from liberal sources. Bachmann's article did not include this incident until just recently, and most likely would not if it wasn't recieving revisionist reporting now that she is a presidential candidate. Additionally, the very start of the paragraph smacks of accusatory language in violation of BLP. If you cannot see that this is being brought up purely for politcal reasons by the left than you are being quite disengenious, and WP should not be the place for political point making. It is WP:UNDUE weight of an years ago incident that recieved almost no press at the time. It is a WP:NPOV violation as it is now presenting that same event through purely partisan viewpoints. Her views on GLBT rights are already well established, this additional political muckracking is not needed. Given her status as a presidential candidate I think we should all be wary of these issues from the past being made into huge political hay. Arzel (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I read about the same incidents in multiple recent profiles of Bachmann in reliable sources and was surprised not to see them here. I went back to the original newspaper reporting to see if the incidents were misrepresented in any way. I even tracked down the original photograph showing Bachmann behind the bushes. I was thorough and did my best to represent the incidents neutrally, so it's a bit frustrating to see the usual suspects who see bias under every rock come in with the usual hysterical alphabet soup and accuse me of a "hatchet attack". Whatever alleged slant or bias about the cited profiles is irrelevant since they are backed up by the original newspaper reporting. The fact that one editor is unable to check certain newspaper sources is irrelevant since an RS is still an RS regardless of whether or not one particular editor among thousands on Wikipedia is unable to navigate or access a newspaper database. If you want access to a source, ask other editors to send you a copy, but I guess that would require abandoning, however briefly, the constant hostility and holy warring. Gamaliel (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's WP:UNDUE more than anything else, and it's only coming up because she's running for president. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So? The lives and careers of presidential candidates always receive more media scrutiny and naturally Wikipedia articles will reflect that. I fail to see that as an argument for ignoring this coverage. How do we decide which issues to ignore based on this arbitrary criteria? That sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Gamaliel (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That some liberal reporters have gone dumpster diving for trash on Bachmann doesn't equate to that trash becoming somehow relevant now. If this were such a big issue than it would have been included before the June 2011 reporting on the incident. It is only because she announced her run at the presidency that it is now important? Arzel (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much point in discussing this issue with you if you are going to just accuse me of all manner of nonsense. Political ideologues often imagine everyone else is also an ideologue so pointing out again the numerous steps I took to insure this material was well-sourced and neutral won't mean much I suppose. It was reported on then, it's being reported on now, and everyone who ever reported on it can't possibly be some kind of liberal axe-grinder unless you permanently live in Fox Nation. Let's move past politics and IDONTLIKEIT, please. Gamaliel (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit my post. That was not a personal attack, and I resent you framing it that way. Arzel (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a direct attack on my motives, which is an uncivil and unwarranted personal attack. Typically I remove personal attacks from any editor directed at any other editor. I don't see any reason to make an exception in your case. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your motives are crystal clear, much like your nice little comment "..unless you permanently live in Fox Nation." I find it extrememly hypocritical to complain about a supposed personal attack while leveling one yourself. Arzel (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

So here's a suggestion: Don't like it? Don't dish it out. Stop pretending you have a crystal ball and everyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith. Gamaliel (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The gay rights rally attendance has been added and deleted to the article many times since 2006, long before anyone talked about a presidential campaign.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that concerns about WP:UNDUE have been adequately addressed, given that according to WP:BLP, "the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." One possible indicator of whether these are noteworthy events is whether they have been reported much by straight news stories outside of local coverage in Minnesota, especially in top sources. Have they been? Drrll (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any. And I certainly don't see a consensus tore-add the material here yet. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, I went back through the archives and did not see any discussion regarding this incident. I went back through the edits to 2008 looking for anything that looked like this incident within the edit summaries and examined versions which looked like they would be the most likely to have included it and didn't see anything either. It was not even in the article when the controversies article info was merged back into the main article (which is where I would imagine it would have been at some time. It would not appear to have been in the article for at least the last three years, although I did get tired of looking and it may have been in there prior to 2008. If you have some additional information regarding the historical inclusion of this please let me know. Arzel (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It was in the article in 2006, with so many removals and additions that I stopped looking.

• Deleted 2006-07-10T14:26:09
• Restored 2006-07-10T18:37:53

Suffice it to say that it hasn't appeared out of nowhere as a result of the presidential campaign. It almost goes without saying that the longer a candidate stays in a presidential campaign the more their past will be reviewed, so it's likely that the biographical issues will be filled out in greater detail.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how any consensus can be reached when the burden here is to overcome arbitrary IDONTLIKEIT objections. There's plenty of national and local coverage, from then and now. I don't see what else is needed to overcome any policy-based objections, as opposed to personal or arbitrary ones. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I'll also notice that it was unsourced and looked like this later that day which is how it remained for a couple of weeks. And that, that editor restored that NPOV version at least a couple of times.

Bachmann is best known for supporting an amendment that would ban gay marriage and all legal equivalents such as civil unions and domestic partner benefits and for being photographed squatting in the bushes observing a gay rights rally at the state capitol.

I think it is clear it was nothing more than political partisanship at that time as well. The article in general at that time was little more than an attack page against Bachmann with BLP violations galore. Throughout the runup to the 2006 election it was removed often as a BLP violation. It was not discussed in the talk pages and was actually a pretty minor issue compared to everything else people were fighting about, like LRT, and looks like it was gone for good by the election. Interestingly the most contentious issue...BY FAR...was her stance regarding Light Rail Train. If you would read the article today you probably wouldn't even know she had a position at all. I think from a historical perspective it was viewed as a BLP violation, dropped and not brought back until juse a couple of weeks ago. Arzel (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Naturally a career in a State Senate is going to primarily require locally based sources. There is no requirement that sources be national, that's an arbitrary standard that was just pulled out of somebody's ass here. Even so, I've inserted references to further national coverage (the AP) and to international coverage of this matter, so I think that dispenses with that particular non-objection. This State Senate section is ridiculously slight considering that this person is a presidential candidate. The Dennis Kucinich article has subarticles on both his mayoral term and his political positions and he was never more than a novelty candidate. His main article discusses issues and controversies such as Muni Light that are 100% local in nature and sourced to local publications, so this "national only" standard clearly doesn't exist anywhere else but this article. We should be expanding this section. Bachmann's anti-gay rights amendment seems to be the most notable issue of her career there based on my reading of the sources, so naturally this section should focus on that. If LRT was in fact a significant issue for her career, it must have escaped notice by the New York Times, but even so if this is true we should also insert material on that issue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

During that period of time, per the history of the article, there are far more notable issues relating to her state senate career. The fact that you wish to focus on this issue, which was quite minor at the time, shows me everthing I need to know about your agenda here. This is only an issue because it is a trigger point to try to bash Bachmann regarding social issues. You know it, I know it. Now if you want to discuss her political issues and policy positions by all means go ahead. You should, however, know better than to focus on POV pushing in violation of NPOV. Providing undue weight to issues years old, and presenting that information is accusatory and BLP violating terms. Arzel (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "per the history of the article". If "there are far more notable issues", then let's see some citations and then let's add to the article. I wish to focus on this issue because it was a notable issue documented in multiple local, national, and international sources that was missing from this article. I also noticed the name of the charter school she founded was missing, so I tracked that down and added it, but I don't see you going apeshit over that. If there was a wonderful story of Bachmann giving flowers and kittens to orphans that appears in multiple local, national, and international sources and was missing from this article I would have added that too. You have attacked me personally because you know you don't have a single argument left to use to block this material that offends you so you turn to throwing shit all over everyone in sight. If, somehow, your agenda becomes one of encyclopedia improvement instead of ideological warfare, please let us know and we'll be glad to help you improving the article instead of making it your battleground. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When this little tidbit was added and removed in 2006, the was not even the issue of dispute. There was a whole host of other stuff that was the primary dispute, as the discussion even shows. If this was such an important issue of her life, than why was it not a really important issue of her life when it actually happened. Apparently over time even the LRT stuff was viewed to be not much of an issue, and from reading the previous discussion I don't know why that stuff was ever so highly disputed. It was Undue Weight and BLP then, and nothing has changed since that time, other than a couple of left leaning reporters trying to stir up the pot. I don't know why you feel the need to use WP to promote this pot stirring. Why not address my BLP concerns instead of attacking me? Arzel (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm attacking you because you are using this page as a forum to attack me and make fantastical allegations regarding my motives. I want nothing more to discuss article content, and if every message from you was like the one below, we would never have a conflict. So why don't you try it? Gamaliel (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fantastical would imply that they are not true. You have never given me any reason to believe otherwise. Arzel (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally I would like to delve into the second part you added. (Highlight mine)

When two women, one a former nun, asked Bachmann questions in the women's restroom, Bachmann screamed "Help! I'm being held against my will!" and fled in tears. She filed a police report but no charges were filed, with the county attorney concluding that the women "simply wanted to discuss certain issues further" with Bachmann.

Let me ask you, how do you know she said that? You are quoting her from a secondary source. She was in a bathroom, and it doesn't appear to be anything but hearsay. According to the police report she did by her own account scream for help...after they blocked her in the bathroom and only let her leave after she screamed. The police report doesn't state what she said, and I am not aware of anywhere she states directly. Your presumably neutral point of view version seems to only include the view of the two women, one of whom you nicely label as a former nun, for apparent dramatic effect. You certainly didn't include Bachmann's perspective anywhere. That section alone is a BLP violation. You are obviously using a pharaphrase as a direct quote of Bachmann (BLP Violation) and presenting the account from two women she encountered (NPOV Violation). Your addition clearly has several WP policy violations. Arzel (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, look, finally a content discussion! Run out of insults? Good. Let's dig in. I know she said that because the reliable source said she said that. I paraphrased nothing; those words were in quotes in multiple reliable sources and I repeated them here exactly as they appeared in the articles. Nothing I read in those articles gave me any reason to think those were not her exact words. I mentioned one woman was a nun because every source I referenced did so as well. I don't feel that I presented the account from a single point of view, but if you feel that I did so, what specific information or POV do you feel is missing from my version? Gamaliel (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You know it is really hard to talk to you when all you can do is be condensending. Who said that she said those exact words? If you are going to quote someone you better have a rock solid source that specifically says Bachmann said this. Why did you not included Bachmann's point of view at all? What does one of the women being a former nun have anything to do with the issue? Why are you in such a rush to include this when it hasn't been in the article for at least three years? Why is any of this due weight now when it apparently hasn't been for at least three years? I'll be off for the rest of the night so I won't respond tonight. Arzel (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel I've earned the right to be condescending to someone who has spent most of this section attacking me and imagining that I'm up to all sorts of malfeasance and character assassination. But, and I say this with complete sincerity, I'm willing to drop it and move on if you are willing to do the same.

In regards to content, I felt that the quote was rock solid because the exact wording appeared in multiple reliable sources. I feel I have represented Bachmann's POV as best I could given that she doesn't seem to have made any public statement on the matter that I could quote from or summarize. She filed a police report, which I noted in the article, so likely she seems to have felt she was in some sort of actual danger, but that fact is really all I had to work with to represent her POV. If you have a suggested alternate wording to help better represent whatever you feel is underrepresented here, I'm open to discussing it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "three years". Are you referring to when this incident was last edited into this article? I wasn't editing this article three years ago so I can't say why it did or did not appear here and I don't see how that is relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You claim to be willing to "drop it" and them make comments like this regarding me in an unrelated topic after making the above statement? I find impossible to accept anything you say with any sence of geniality. You didn't represent Bachmann's POV at all. You could have used her police statements, which you did not. Arzel (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I did drop it, here on this page, and I felt we made progress on this discussion once we got into specifics instead of accusations. When I said "drop it" I never said I would pretend you never insulted me in any way or pretend that your past behavior over a number of years did not exist. I would like, for the benefit of this article, and the other editors here that are tired of this nonsense, for you to refrain from dragging in unrelated material. You say I "could have used her police statements". I looked through the Lexis/Nexis documents I saved in my inbox and I don't see anything from her police statement that I could have used in the article. Perhaps I missed something. Instead of accusing me of doing something wrong, why not suggest what I should have done right? Why don't you tell me what statements I should have used and how I should have placed them in the article? I'll probably agree with the suggested changes. This is the root of the problem right here, which you refuse to see or take responsibility for. You see a perceived mistake and/or omission, and instead of suggesting a change, you immediately accuse someone of wrongdoing while they have no idea what this supposed wrongdoing is and they have to try to figure it out while all they get from you is insults. If you had just spelled out what the hell you thought was wrong, specifically, in the first place instead of going on about "hatchet jobs" and so forth, it wouldn't have us four days just to get to the point where we're asking you what you think is missing from the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So your response is "I won't attack you to your face" Nice. You have accused me of being idologically driven from the beginning, so you can drop the crap about your innocence. Yet when I call you on your ideological bent you bitch and cry. Reasoned arguements seem pointless as you either ignore the question, obfuscate the issue, or respond with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You seem to be very interested BLP issues when they apply to liberal topics, yet not with conservative topics. You fight ideological issues, (like the label for MMfA when it suits your tastes, yet use RS to include even the most trivial information into conservative articles. I don't think your addition has any weight value, thus I see no point in trying to make something that I see as undue weight more neutral. I know you are smart enough to have seen what she said in the police report, your failure to include her perspective in your edit can only lead me to believe one conclusion. Arzel (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

From the beginning? So I made you call my contribution a "hatchet job" and made you attack my "motives" in your first post here about it, prior to my appearance on this talk page? How did I do that? I see that your true colors have reasserted themselves, just when confronted with the direct question of what was wrong with that contribution. Again you dodge the most simple, basic question with attacks. Why won't you just simply specify what material you think should have been included? In your comment in a thread higher up the page you demand that I "give you a reason" to comply with Wikipedia policy and practice regarding civility and AGF before you will finally stop acting like an asshat towards me. Why should we not insist the same of you? All you have to do to prove that you are not an ideological warrior is just answer a simple, direct question about what you think is missing from that paragraph. (Around here we call that participating in the editing process, instead of using the talk page as a platform for launching ideological attacks.) I can only conclude that the answer to that question does not exist and you are attacking me in a desperate, pathetic attempt to cover up that fact. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A side note regarding my alleged disinterest in BLP when it comes to conservative topics, I could cite may counter examples, but the best example to dispute that false allegation is when I asked you to assist me regarding BLP issues in the article for conservative talk show host Kevin James (broadcaster). How soon we forget inconvenient facts. Gamaliel (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was the actual inflammatory title of The Sunday Times article omitted, using only the subtitle? The full title is: "From Tea Party kook to contender; Michele Bachmann's born-again, anti-gay views have split her family and may disrupt her White House campaign, says Christina Lamb." That reminds me of the only other non-local and non-April 2005 source from The Daily Beast, titled "Bachmann's Unrivaled Extremism." Drrll (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at the Lexis/Nexis document and you're right, that is the full title. The title is split over two lines in L/N and I guess I cut and paste only one. Since correcting the title of a citation is a pretty uncontroversial edit, I'll go ahead and make the change despite the article protection. If there are any objections to this, feel free to voice them here or revert me. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Drrll (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've also edited it to provide a direct link to the article, for the benefit of anyone who already subscribes to the Times archives.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat arbitrary break for statement by Jimbo that some may find interesting

My concern here, perhaps surprisingly since I'm quite firm on BLP, is not particularly BLP-related. My concern is rather: what's the point? Neither of these incidents seems to have any very strong bearing on anything that a reader might like to know about this candidate. Here on the talk page, we are discussing these two incidents under the heading "Gay rights incidents" but it is not clear to me how either of them tells us anything particularly useful (as readers and potential voters) about her.

For the first incident, I'm afraid I'm puzzled as to what it is supposed to show. She says she was resting, others say she was hiding behind bushes to watch a rally. If we take her at face value (and why not?) then it's obviously pointless. But my point is that it is equally pointless if she did peek over bushes to see the rally. Given that she's a well-known politician locally, and given that there was a rally going on, she might be afraid that the crowd would approach her, angry, thus leading to an unpleasant public confrontation. Maybe she just wanted to avoid that. I don't see what the point is supposed to be for me today, as a reader. I'm much more interested in actual encyclopedic facts. If this is supposed to be about gay rights, tell me her substantive position on the issues and how she voted. Leave the sensationalism to the tabloids.

For the second incident, I'm even more perplexed. She felt cornered in a restroom and may have called for help. It is unclear whether the quote from her comes from her or from the two political opponents who approached her in the restroom. She called the police about it, and the police decided nothing could be done. I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be. What conclusion are we supposed to draw about it? It seems to me that maybe the point is to paint her as a paranoid nutcase? Or, to put it more charitably, to "use reliable sources" to paint a picture of her as a person? If that's what we are trying to do, surely there are biographical profiles that describe her as nervous or relaxed, laid-back or high-strung, etc. Citing an out-of-context incident in which a politician may have unnecessarily panicked (or not) doesn't seem to really tell me anything useful.

I suppose I am arguing, in a roundabout way, for this being WP:UNDUE weight, but usually when we throw out that buzzword, we mean that this is negative information that is made to seem more important than it actually is. But in this case, it's not clear to me in either case that, even if the incidents are interpreted as her opponents want us to interpret them, that they are convincing or interesting evidence of anything. They are just weird little bits that happened to make the press somehow.

I argue that what this article lacks, but should contain, is a more extensive discussion of her position on gay marriage. One of the linked articles talked briefly about what she was doing in the Senate that day, some kind of (alleged) end run around some rules to try to get through some anti-gay legislation. (Sorry I'm being vague but I closed the window and I need to get to bed soon.) Ok, now that part sounds interesting, not this silly nonsense about hiding behind bushes. Real information about her real and important actions as a politician are what I want from Wikipedia.

Let me explain this a little bit more, at risk of writing too long, but I think this is really important. Obama is opposed to gay marriage. Now I happen to believe that he's in favor of it privately, but feels it politically unwise to come out (haha, bad pun) in favor of it publicly. But he certainly isn't aggressively working to do anything about it. The point is that politicians for a wide variety of reasons put forward formal positions that they may technically support but do little about.

If she, a conservative politician, puts forward the position that she's opposed to gay marriage, but does nothing about it, that's interesting to me. And if she puts forward that she's opposed to gay marriage and fights like hell against it, including procedural ploys, etc., then that seems relevant, as it tells me whether this is just a "lip service" position that I don't need to worry about, or if it is something she holds near and dear to her heart, in which case I do need to worry about it. (Or, vice-versa, if my own opinion were anti-gay marriage.)

Do you see what I mean? That's what good encyclopedic writing should be about: real substance on real issues. Simply adding up references and jamming in any old weird and unconvincing "controversy" is a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is to document the life of a politician and presidential candidate. To put in or leave out biographical information because it is evidence of how she does or does not advocate for a particular position of hers is pushing a POV, no? Gamaliel (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I don't think this information tells us anything useful about her at all, as explained above. I think it is not evidence of her political positions. And I do think that for politicians, we absolutely should prioritize information about their political activities - it's what makes them of interest to an encyclopedia reader. I don't think that's POV pushing, what POV is being pushed? That an encyclopedia should focus on serious matters?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Is not the behavior of a politician and presidential candidate a serious matter? Does not how she handles this issue, central to her agenda, tell us something useful? I think these incidents tell us much more about political matters than her work as a tax attorney or her taking care of 23 foster children, factoids deemed so important they appear in the introduction. We all define usefulness differently so I don't think this is a particularly useful (pun intended!) metric to measure material for potential inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You lost me there. She's a strongly and publicly professed Christian, and so her work with foster children seems to go directly toward establishing how she lives her life in line with Christian values. That a politician has worked as a tax attorney is obviously relevant to their qualifications.

My point is that I can't tell at all what these two incidents are supposed to say about her as a politician. They are weird little tidbits, nothing more. The most they tell us is perhaps that she prefers to avoid confrontation and gets nervous about her personal security. And even those things are hard to glean with any certainty, because of the nebulousness of the two events. She was photographed beside bushes. She called the police when she felt threatened in a toilet. Hard to see what either of those things tell us about her stance on gay rights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You just proved my point. One person would say that the foster children prove Christian values, another would say that it does no such thing because people of many (or no) faiths do the same thing. One person would say that these incidents illustrate nothing, another would say that her behavior here regarding her signature issue illustrates how she would perform as president. This is a meaningless and arbitrary metric. Gamaliel (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I just proved your point. Look, I think these two incidents don't tell the reader anything of significance. I think they should be replaced with more information about actual things she has said and done. I have explained why in some detail. You disagree with me. That isn't "meaningless and arbitrary rhetoric" - it's two reasonable people having a proper dialog. Anyway, I've said my piece, and I hope people find it useful and persuasive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misread my final sentence above. I don't think this discussion is "meaningless", and I do think this is a proper and potentially useful discussion. My comments were in regard to using "usefulness" as a means to measure suitability for inclusion. Not trying to drag this out, just wanted to clarify. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jimbo. I think with certain politicians/public figures, incidents like this can be notable if they show what the person believes and why. With Bachmann, it doesn't really shed any light on anything. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As I think further about this, I think that the kind of things readers are looking for are things that either show consistency or hypocrisy. For a hypothetical example, if she happened to have a gay family member with whom she is personally very close, it would be interesting to know that, as it would be evidence of her "love the sinner, hate the sin" outlook, as well as evidence that even knowing and loving a gay family member isn't enough to persuade her that her views are wrong. Or if, separately, she fired someone from a job after they came out as gay, that seems pretty relevant too.

Both of these incidents are very trivial, and there seems to me no reason to be so trivial: it isn't as if Bachmann hasn't said many things, easily documented, that are quite interesting on the topic of gay rights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Jimbo here. If these issues got a lot more coverage than they did it might make sense to include them. But they really do seem to be trivial issues. Let's try to focus on the major stuff. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation: Do some research as opposed to repeating the most popular tabloid tittle-tattle. Michele has a gay half-sister, Helen LaFave (partner Nia Wronski), with whom she grew up with and was (at one time) very close to. You can get the general picture from here and here and here and googling. Michelle Goldberg, for example, is a respected journalist: read this which provides both facts and context. this might be interesting to follow up on. Bachmann's voting record is available (see EL). So is this which provides references here. 'Original research' would be to try to interview the half-sister on your own. 'Research' is to look beyond blogs and tabloid coverage of political spin intended to attract the most popular interest. Look deeper, and stick to facts. 99.50.185.223 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• The tried-and-true Wikipedia fallback of "but but but it is reliably sourced!" doesn't justify everything under the sun for inclusion into an article. The AP, usatoday and others made mention of Barack Obama swatting a fly during an interview once, as well as some stuff on the shapeliness of Michelle Obama's arms. All this sort of thing is is tabloid-ish fluff. Remember that we're here to write an encyclopedia, not a blog-like entry on today's TMZ front page. Leave this junk out. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think Jimbo makes his point very well. The quality of the encyclopedia is determined, in part, by the content of the articles. We could go for a "tabloid encyclopedia" and include all manner of trivia or interpretation, but I believe the consensus is that we don't do that. We avoid trivia and disallow original research (interpretation). The term "unenyclopedic" is, of course subjective - a bit like "unAustralian" or "unAmerican" - and means different things to different people. What makes Wikipedia both fun and interesting is, among many other things, the global collaborative nature of the project. That means that there are always different opinions about what is and what isn't encyclopedic or trivial. In this case, my opinion is that both events here are trivial in themselves and any deeper/significant meaning applied to them is subjective at best and POV at worst. If enough secondary commentators discuss the events, that may be significant and the discussion may be included - but to make statements or imply policy positions or personal traits based on these events alone is, I believe, beyond what can be reasonably considered objective editing. Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There having been no further commentary, I've removed the trivia. I hope to spend some time tomorrow morning looking to replace it with more substantive information of more value to readers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a piece recently on Nightline featuring the business the Bachmanns own. It might work for inclusion under the business section. [2]

Daviwrng (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

American History Knowledge Level

No discussion here at all, regarding her incredulous statements in a speech, specifically how our founding fathers worked tirelessly against slavery until it was eradicated from the good ol' USofA!? And how they deserve more recognition for same!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That remark is covered in Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012#Speech to Iowans for Tax Relief.   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thx. I seem to always forget about "satellite" articles, because I don't automatically assume they exist. (Couldn't/shouldn't there be a "See also" section containing link for same?)

After reading the satellite article, it corrects a fact re which of the two Adams was a "founding father". But it doesn't correct fact when slavery was really "no more"/"extinguished" in the U.S. (1865, contrary to Bachmann's speech). (Am I nitpicking? Or isn't such glaring demo of ignorance of American History indicative at all on: her education, beliefs, background, presidential interests, and qualifications? And therefore relevant for a BLP on her?)

(If you were reading a newspaper [WP article] and were unawares about stepping into an open manhole because the cover was missing [getting a skewed understanding of Bachmann's level of education], I'd shout and try to get your attention about it [mention it in the BLP], rather than just call 911 for you after you fell in & hit your head on the iron rim [assume readers will know of and go find a satellite article].)

The speech was five months ago. Maybe I'm missing discussion in some archived Talk page!? (The satellite article has no Talk page content.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Found a discussion in Archive 2 file, section "Founding fathers speech". I don't get arguments like this: "You might want to recheck the subject of this article; it is Michele Bachmann, not slavery in the United States or history of the United States. The speech is given more prominence than it is due already. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)" If Obama told us in a speech, that he smokes pot prior to making troup-deployment decisions in Afghanistan, duh, would the issue be "is it legal for a president to smoke pot?", and would there be argument that "the BLP is about Obama, not his speech"? No. What the man said he did, is news about HIM. And the ridiculous re-write of history Bachmann gave in her Iowa speech, tells us something about HER. (I.e, her level of education re American history.) Maybe having knowledge of American history less than a high school kid isn't important info about a presidential candidate who is considered a front-runner? Who are we kidding? The same topic and questions have been on ABC national news recently (i.e. Bachmann's knowledge of American history reflected in that speech, and reflecting on her qualifications for president), so, why are we so deaf here about it? Pinch me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lcyarrington, 27 June 2011

Please make an addition to reflect Michelle Bachmann's claimed Jewish heritage from an interview she gave that is found on the citations of the page, in which she states, "I consider my heritage Jewish." The link is here: http://tcjewfolk.com/michele-bachmann-israel/ The addition would be most appropriate in the "Early Life, Education, and Early Career" section.

Lcyarrington (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

She has no "claimed Jewish heritage"; the usage in the quote is obviously metaphorical, not ancestral. But it might be appropriate to mention that her feelings about Israel and the Jewish people are based on her Christianity having its roots in Judaism. (In any case, this doesn't seem to be such an important edit that it needs to be made while the page is locked.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Discussion does not seem to be finished. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In waterloo, IA Bachmann said that she has a spirit just like John Wayne, stating that he was from Waterloo, IA. The only John Wayne from Waterloo, IA was John Wayne Gacy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/27/the-wrong-john-wayne/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsLfL9vMaUY --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 20:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A typical misstatement by a politician, no doubt one of about a million between now and the fall 2012 elections. Nothing relevant here to Bachmann's bio. Tarc (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My bad then, sorry --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 21:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I also saw that she publicly stated that she is proud of being from Waterloo, and noted Gacy as another notable resident. I would say that a homophobic politician stating they have the same pride in their hometown as a serial killed known for killing underage boys is important. Mistake or not, it is important to note that she is shallow and not good with the details.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.161.227.70 (talk) 14:43, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure she was not directly referring to Gacy but the actor John Wayne. As it turned out, Wayne is not from Waterloo. Truthsort (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The WashTimes article shown above also contains an update in which it is pointed out that although John Wayne was born in Winterset, Iowa, his parents met in Waterloo, where they lived before his birth. Is Bachmann so perfect on the important facts and issues that the only criticisms of her to be found are trivial misstatements? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This may be better placed at Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request re farm owned by her father-in-law

The section on "Family Life" includes this paragraph, the last two sentences of which lack footnotes.

She and her husband own a Christian counseling practice in Stillwater.[23][24] Bachmann also has an ownership stake in a family farm located in Waumandee, Wisconsin. Since the death of her father-in-law in 2009, the farm and its buildings have been rented out to a neighboring farmer who maintains a dairy herd on the farm.

I request that the first sentence of this paragraph be left as is, and the rest expanded so that there are now two paragraphs:

She and her husband own a Christian counseling practice in Stillwater.[23][24] Their clinic, run by her husband, who has a PhD in Clinical Psychology from Union Graduate School,<ref>{{cite web |accessdate=2011-06-27 |title= Biography of Marcus Bachmann |publisher=bachmanncounseling.com |url=http://www.bachmanncounseling.com/therapists/marcus-bachmann/ }}</ref> received nearly $30,000 from Minnesota and the federal government between 2006 and 2010. Bachmann said that she and her husband had not benefited at taxpayers' expense: the money went to the clinic's employees, for mental health training.<ref name="LAT0627">{{cite news |work=Los Angeles Times |title=Michele Bachmann denies benefiting from government aid |author=Richard A. Serrano |date=June 27, 2011 |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-michele-bachmann-20110627,0,3115941.story }}</ref>

Bachmann also has an ownership stake in a family farm located in Waumandee, Wisconsin. Since the death of her father-in-law in 2009, the farm and its buildings have been rented out to a neighboring farmer who maintains a dairy herd on the farm.{{cn}} Although Bachmann said in June 2011 that "my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm",<ref name="LAT0627"/> personal financial disclosure reports showed that the farm produced income for Bachmann of at least $32,500 and as much as $105,000 from 2006 through 2009. From 1995 through 2010, the farm got about $260,000 in federal crop and disaster subsidies.<ref name="WP0627">{{cite news |work=Washington Post |Title=Fact Check: Bachmann emerges as one to watch for inaccuracies in GOP presidential race |url= |publisher=Associated Press |date=June 27, 2011 |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/fact-check-bachmann-emerges-as-one-to-watch-_-for-inaccuracies-_-in-gop-presidential-race/2011/06/27/AGvKBznH_story.html}}</ref>

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any oppostion to this request? If not, I will implement shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing the refnames from "Denies" to "LAT0627" and "Emerges" to "WP0627", or something to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Objection. The wording is slightly leading. The use of the word "although" regarding the farm subsidies implies that she is lying. The wording should be changed to maintain a neutral point of view. Arzel (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Objection. This paragraph uses the word farm interchangably to reference the land (owned in part by bachmann) and the dairy (operated by the tenant farmer). Also it does not mention Bachmann's explanation of the matter.Dpky (talk) 21:17, 4 July 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)

Aren't we missing a Religion section to this article?

Seems a lot of her beliefs and policies are rooted in her Evangelical (?) beliefs - doesn't this deserve a section? Pär Larsson (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Public figures with entirely less spotlight currently on them often have large sections about their religion, and I don't know of one of them who features their theology more prominently into their public discourse and policy making. I'd say it's necessary to include such a section. NVSBL (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request re: John Eidsmoe

My first experience with a fully protected article. Let's see.

On web-page one of the Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone article, Taibbi says "Bachmann was mentored by a ... professor named John Eidsmoe." (His opinion of the professor, which I've elided, is "... crackpot Christian extremist ....") The article's been used for a number of early-life facts (footnote #12 a-b-c-d-e, currently; I can't even get the refname). Eidsmoe is cited several times in Wiki, and I think adding the elided quote or a simple paraphrase to the third paragraph of Michele Bachmann#Early life, education, and early career section would be worthwhile and helpful.

A Google search for "John Eidsmoe bachmann" seems to yield enough independent citations (Stephanopoulos, The New Republic) to feel Taibbi didn't somehow make up the basic fact (opinion aside). So I think the Taibbi footnote alone would be adequate, but others could be garnered also.

If there's more I can do (or better I could have done, so far), please let me know. I'll check back. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. What are you asking? That Eidsmoe be labeld a "crackpot Christian extremist"? I am pretty sure that would be a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I stated what I wanted, and Gamaliel has nicely converted it into a good edit below which hopefully will be executed. "Elided" means "taken out," in this context (with an ellipsis "..." inserted to signal the removal), removed for the the reason you cite. Take out the opinion, keep the fact, was my approach. Swliv (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. I misunderstud "Elided" to mean something else, it is not a word I have seen used very often. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

From the above links: "At Coburn, Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe, who she recently described as "one of the professors who had a great influence on me." Bachmann served as his research assistant on the 1987 book Christianity and the Constitution, which argued that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and that it should become one again." It's pretty clear these facts should play a larger role in this section. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds just right, and I agree about putting it in.

And I found the Taibbi citation sufficient but you may have added some content from other sources. I can't create the Taibbi footnote because I don't know the "refname" being used in the article, so whoever chooses/can insert this in the article will have to do that. If you have used other sources, those footnotes I guess should be appended to your proposed wording here.

Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Clindseysmith, 28 June 2011

In section on 2012 Presidential Campaign add: Bachmann formally announced her candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination on Monday 27 June 2011 during an appearance in Waterloo, Iowa. Clindseysmith (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fat&Happy, 28 June 2011

Please correct the format of the date as used to fulfill the above edit request to read "June 27, 2011," rather than "Monday 27 June 2011", and also add "June 28, 2011" to the empty "date=" parameter of the {{Cite web}} (probably s/b {{Cite news}}) template. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.74.245.84, 29 June 2011

Michelle Bachmann took heat for her assertion that she earned an LL.M. Degree in Tax Law from W&M. In fact, W&M does not and has never offered an LL.M. for American students - the LL.M. is in "American Law" for foreign students. The source is from W&M...

http://law.wm.edu/academics/programs/llmdegree/index.php

75.74.245.84 (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but secondary sourcing disputing this is required for this claim. Truthsort (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please reactivate when there is consensus for this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is with this claim: does not and has never offered an LL.M. for American students. It's clear that W&M does not now offer an LL.M. to American students, but that tells us nothing about what was offered in the 1980s.

More generally, the policy at most U.S. universities and colleges is that anyone can contact them to check if a particular person who says he/she got a degree in fact did get one. Thus it's hard to believe this degree is bogus, since that implies that no newspaper reporter (or Democratic opposition researcher) has actually made such a phone call (because if it was bogus, it would a big news story). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Federal marriage amendment stance

For the part under "Social issues" that said she supported federal and state amendments against same-sex marriage, it says that the citation did not include that information. However, here are two articles that do include that information: from FOX News regarding a federal constitutional amendment, from The Hill about the same, and from the Christian Post about her previous introduction of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Minnesota. Can someone with editing privileges here please add those, so the "social issues" section is more properly cited? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fiscal policy

Under the section titled 'Fiscal policy,' it says that Bachmann opposes minimum wage increases. However, the citation simply links to a video. This, of course, is not an appropriate citation. Also, depending on the context, it might be more appropriate to list this as an observable, verifiable stance she took, rather than as a universal policy view. 24.16.133.58 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, she has said that she opposes having any minimum wage at all, so the Wikipedia article is at least misleading, if not simply wrong. Here's a proposal for what the Wikipedia article should say:

In an interview in late June 2011, Bachmann did not back away from her previous position of wanting to eliminate the minimum wage, in order to "virtually wipe out unemployment."<ref>{{cite web |title=Fact Checking Michele Bachmann on Minimum Wage |publisher=ABC News |author=Amy Bingham |date=June 29, 2011 |accessdate=2011-06-30 |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/eliminating-minimum-wage-slash-unemployment/story?id=13951494 }}</ref/>

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination

What would it take for this to become a good article? Any thoughts? —Designate (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not even worth trying. Right now much of the article is essentially a set of lists (for example, eight memorable things she did in the 110th Congress), without introductory paragraphs. I have real doubts that anyone could summarize such sections in neutral language in a way that would get consensus, at least not without putting in huge amounts of time.

And then there is the matter of undue weight. To offer one example, I can see endless arguments as to whether the length of the section "On anti-Americanism" is acceptable or not. Or whether controversial matters should make up such a high percentage of the article.

In short, I think that editor time and energy would be better spent elsewhere. On the other hand, if Bachmann does become the Republican nominee for U.S. President, then it makes sense to try to get the article to at least "good" quality. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting POV edits

WND is not an adequate source. Saying "critics say" is a clear NPOV violation, when we should be stating facts in unbiased ways. And the burden of inclusion is on you, so stop reinserting that info unless a consensus is developed here that it should be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the WND cite, it wasn't needed (the information was already adequately cited). As for whether WND is a reliable source, let's just say that per the discussion here, that's disputed, so why introduce yet something else to argue about? (Just scanning the WorldNetDaily article, it's difficult to believe that this is a source that we'd ever want to cite.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this post and I'll note that your time stamp is after several reversions were made. I really didn't expect anyone to challenge the notion that critics were complaining about the subsidies. Otherwise, what is the point of the paragraph about the farm anyway? As it was written, there was no clarity as to why the subsidies were relevant. So, how should we introduce the controversy? Listing all the critics names and their quotes? Also, still haven't heard any specifics as to why WND would not be citable.

Until we get consensus on this I'll stay clear of "critics" and WND but am going to reinsert the other contributions Muboshgu reverted as no explanation for their revertion has been made here.Dpky (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation of Gossip Story

Is it proper to cite a gossip story? The paragraph about Bachmann being photographed crouching has a citation of an article from a Star Tribune Gossip columnist. Should the citation be removed? Dpky (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, another citation from the same paragraph refers to an AP story that provides the Bachmann quote from a Star Tribune story. Anybody able to locate the original Star Tribune story from 2005? Dpky (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

global economy quote

The introduction to the quote is misleading. It makes it sound like she wants the US to withdraw from global commerce. In reality, she was arguing for some distance to shelter us from inflationary economies like Zimbabwe. The introduction should be clarified. 173.175.51.249 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)SLW

Edit request from Sparticle, 7 July 2011

"worked as a tax attorney" should be clarified to "worked for the Internal Revenue Service as a tax attorney" The American Bar Association recognizes a distinction for "Lawyers in Government or Legal/Public Service" and has a specialty division for "Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division" Sparticle (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)  Done Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:06, 7 July 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)

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)

Edit request from Clindseysmith, 28 June 2011

The summary still lists Bachmann's religion as "Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod", which she left in June 2011. Bachmann lists no official religion on her Congressional website or campaign website. In sub-section on Religion under section on Family, clarify the first statement to read: Bachmann was a longtime member of the Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church, until June 2011 when she and her husband officially withdrew their membership, just before she officially began her presidential campaign.

 Already done Appears as if this has been changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sidewalk counseling" discussion

Saying that Bachmann "served as a sidewalk counselor" implies that "sidewalk counseling" is actually counseling, that it is widely accepted therapy of any sort, and that it is voluntarily sought by the recipient. In reality, "sidewalk counseling" refers to pro-life activists confronting people outside abortion clinics, often (or perhaps always) quite aggressively, and attempting to force their views upon abortion patients who have not otherwise sought those views. How shall we rectify this obvious problem? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I support your edit. It's a NPOV violation to pretend this is something that it is not, and without the necessary context the phrase "sidewalk counselor" implies that Bachmann was engaged in counseling and not activism, especially when she is a co-owner of a clinic that purportedly practices real counseling services. Gamaliel (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I am also interested in hearing feedback from User:Fat&Happy in order to work towards a solution that reflects consensus. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I toned down the rhetoric a bit while attempting to preserve the facts, but don't necessarily claim it's a perfect finished product. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked it slightly so it was clear they don't just mill about passing out pamphlets, but besides that your version looks good to me. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. I think "armed" could be dropped (or changed), but can live with the present version until others voice opinions. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "carrying". Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think one problem is that the source (a GOP bio of their candidate MB) is being treated as a news story would be and the editors of the sidewalk paragraph are making conclusions about MB's conduct based on their own personal presumptions and not that found in any source. So, maybe it is better to say that she was described as a sidewalk counselor in a party bio. Or find better sources. Dpky (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sidewalk counseling" is the term used to describe it and it's the title of the article. You may disagree with it, but that's what we have to use. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just becuase someone created a wikipedia article titled "sidewalk counseling" doesn't mean that is what GOP.com's Cnadidate Focus article was referring to. Also, I'm not bothered so much by the term but rather the editor's effort to characterize and summarize what MB did as a sidewalk counselor when there is no source to inform us as to what she did. Dpky (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you aware of any other usage of the term "sidewalk counseling" in this context that doesn't mean exactly what the articles (and cited sources) say? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In this context, I think the GOP.COM candidate focus is refering to a title given by whatever organization MB was volunteering for. In that context, the definition of a sidewalk counselor would be determined by that organization.Dpky (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. The article doesn't even remotely suggest that. So no, your utterly unfounded speculation that some un-mentioned group that may have had a different definition of "sidewalk counseling" may have existed, and that Bachmann may have been a part of it, and that thus the reference in the GOP.com to "sidewalk counseling" really meant to refer to this unidentified alternative meaning of the term, as possibly used by a possibly non-existent group that it hasn't been proven Bachmann wasn't a part of, does not suffice to establish anything at all. Among other things, this means it does not establish whatever it is you're trying to say it establishes. WTF?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the Patheos article and it seems to be an opion article. Thus, I sought to glean facts from opionion. The auther provides a link to a source for a Bachmann wuote but no where in that source does it mention what Bachmann actually did as a "sidewalk counselor". So, the Patheos author's summary of what a sidewalk counselor is semms to be his opinion or personal definition but is not a citable description of MB's actual actions as a sidewalk counselor. So, the phrase describing what a SC is seems out of place. The Patheos source also seems unnecessary. Dpky (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear user's thoughts about taking phrases from quoted text and hyperlinking them to other articles. Does the hyperlink to Sidewalk Counseling in this case color what the person being quoted was saying. Especially when the quoted text was dscribing a specific act of sidewalk counseling by MB and the linked Wikipedia article is about a gerneral description of Sidewalk Counseling which may be very different than what MB actually engaged in. Dpky (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Patheos source is immaterial, it's pretty well-established what "sidewalk counseling" is. You can swap in some other footnote if you like. If we don't describe it at all, then it leaves the impression that she was engaged in real counseling, specially since she co-owns a real counseling clinic, instead of what often becomes angry shouting with graphic pictures displayed. Someone's already toned down the description of sidewalk counseling that was originally in the article, that should be enough to satisfy any NPOV concerns. Gamaliel (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes the Patheos source is immaterial because it is not a good source at all to inform us as to what MB's actions were as a sidewalk counselor. If the term is well defined and known then there is no need to define it for the reader. I thought it was a good compromise to focus on the fact that it is GOP.COM that describes her as a sidewalk counselor. Dpky (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good rationale for changing it. Plus, "counseling" needs not refer to professional counseling; counsel simply means to give advice to someone, professionally or not. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Misleading use of terminology would violate NPOV. We don't use euphemistic language, and that's exactly what we'd be doing if we matter-of-factly referred to activists confronting total strangers on the streets regarding their private medical decisions as if they were providing "counseling" of any sort, medical or otherwise. NYYankee's latest edit also worsens the NPOV situation by matter-of-factly indicating that this conduct "is referred to" as "sidewalk counseling", without any explanation of what the conduct is and who refers to it in that way. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well put. This is what I've been trying to say all along. Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that none of us know what MB's actual style of sidewalk counseling was. She may have simply offered to pray with people, for example. The GOP.COM source describes it "served as a sidewalk couselor" but it is not a news piece and so cannot be relied upon for such a characterization other than to say she was some sourt of sidewalk counselor. The Patheos source is a blog post on a religion website that says it is offering a humanist view and thus is written by a self proclaimed humanist. Therefore, the Patheos article is not a news article. The Patheos piece relies upon reporting from a christian newspaper, The Christian Post, a real newspaper that reported MB's statement in a speech. In that speech, MB lists sidewalk counseling among other things like praying and donating money as things people can do as a gift to God. None of these sources tell us what type of actions MB took as a sidewalk counselor except for the opinions added by the humanist blogger. Thus, I believe, it is important to stay clear of trying to characterize in anyway what she did. Now that leaves us with the question of whether to say she "engaged" in "sidewalk counseling" or that she "served" as a "sidewalk counselor". The GOP.Com source is not news and the Patheos piece isn't talking about MB as a Sidewalk Counselor but rather is talking about MB's praise of sidewalk counseling. I have a rewrite in mind. Let me take a stab at it and let's discuss it somemore. Dpky (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose approaching a total stranger who's about to undergo an abortion – completely unsolicited and only within the limits prescribed by state laws which were enacted to protect women from having to endure such unwanted "counseling" – and "offering to pray" with her is not a tactic calculated to induce guilt for having an abortion, or persuade her not to have an abortion?

You're making incredibly attenuated arguments about sourcing (e.g.: GOP.COM source is only an acceptable source for the claim she engaged in sidewalk counseling because it's "not a news piece"... and... also only says she engaged in sidewalk counseling; the Patheos article is written by a "self-proclaimed humanist"?) and the conclusion they've led you to violates NPOV. I'm OK with some kind of qualifications in which we explicitly attribute sources and say that sidewalk counseling "generally refers to" this sort of activity, but there's no way to address this material without violating NPOV unless we explain to the reader what sidewalk counseling is; and in explaining what it is, we don't engage in euphemisms, especially euphemisms that are not generally accepted. Making a matter-of-fact reference to the term "sidewalk counseling", without any explanation, would be exactly that.

There's plenty of literature out there, from, among other things, organizations that have complained about the harassment that sidewalk counseling so typically is; numerous federal court cases including Supreme Court cases have been fought over whether the tactic is even legal as a result of the fact that the controversial conduct is so offensive to so many people. Obviously not all such protestors carry signs of bloody fetuses, but the common thread is that all sidewalk counseling is intended to protest abortions and dissuade the "target" mothers from obtaining abortions. There is no other meaning of the term "sidewalk counseling". This is readily confirmed by, for example, visiting the websites of organizations that advocate or support sidewalk counseling, e.g.: "Sidewalk counseling is exactly what the name implies—standing on the sidewalk outside an abortion clinic, counseling women and couples on their way inside. It is a last attempt to turn their hearts away from abortion and offer real help."

So the objection that we should clam up on the subject because we allegedly don't know for sure whether Bachmann was actually engaged in some different, heretofore-unseen form of "sidewalk counseling" that is not aimed at dissuading women from obtaining abortions, does not really hold water. If there's any evidence that Michele Bachman has only ever engaged in a completely different sort of sidewalk counseling, that can shape our entry, but in the meantime we have to assume the term means what it is generally understood to mean. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, this is a whole big case of I don't like sidewalk counseling. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's cute that you keep citing that essay, but not only is it irrelevant, it's not policy. WP:NPOV is policy. Policy trumps non-policy. And to be more specific, NPOV trumps almost all other policies. It's plainly inconsistent with NPOV to use euphemisms as if they were ordinary words. Surely you'd object if the entry on abortion eliminated all mention of "abortion" and instead used the term "fetal heaven-access procedure" or some other ridiculous nonsense. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If I ever start a band, I'm naming it Fetal Heaven Access Procedure. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're not denying that you're changing it because you don't like it? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why this absurd red herring? Both factchecker and I have repeatedly stated that we consider this an NPOV issue and we've repeatedly stated why we think it is an NPOV issue. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that both of you personally object to the practice of sidewalk counseling, and you are editing this article in an attempt to discredit the practice and those who engage in it. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know I object to this practice and how is that knowledge relevant? We've both presented solid policy-based objections. Put away the crystal ball and stop trying to divine secret motivations so we can start discussing the objections on the table. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This, coming from the guy who lectures me on AGF. Listen, pal, just because people who protest outside abortion clinics like to refer to that activity by a media-friendly name that implies it's something else entirely doesn't mean the rest of the world has to use that same euphemism. One could just as easily say that PETA protestors who break into animal-testing labs are actually "independent research advisors". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right about AGF, apologies to both of you. However, "sidewalk counseling" is not a euphemism. As I've said, "counseling" simply means giving advice to someone. It does not have to refer to professional/medical counseling. Sidewalk counselors are advising women not to have abortions. The term is accurate. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely; just like "re-education camp" was not a euphemism for the prison/indoctrination camps run by the North Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon. The people in the camps were being educated, all over again. The term was accurate. Right? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this - you find reliable sources to back up your opinion? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

All the references you could possibly find on sidewalk counseling are going to say essentially the same thing. Pick one and add it yourself if you don't like the ones we have already. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with NYY. The context indicates what is meant by the term.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) NYY didn't say that. (2) The context certainly does not indicate what is meant. For example, the term "sidewalk counseling", unaccompanied by any explanation, implies that abortion patients actually seek this "counseling". Generally speaking, providing advice to someone who seeks it is referred to as "counseling"; providing advice to a total stranger who has not sought that advice, by confronting them in a public place, is referred to as "harassment".

Given the supposedly ordinary meaning of "counseling" that is being suggested by people who wish to use the term "sidewalk counseling" without explanation, the "God Hates Fags" people from Westboro Baptist Church are simply providing counseling to the families of dead soldiers. And like the "sidewalk counselors", First Amendment Freedom of speech is the only thing that allows them to engage in this conduct without getting arrested. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to seek consensus regarding the Patheos citation. I believe it to be a broken citation as 1) It is not a news article but rather a opinion blog post. 2)The description it provides of Sidewalk Counseling is the opinion of one person as a humanist and not as a professional expert on the subject of sidewalk counseling. 3) It does not refer to MB's sidewalk counseling but rather to her praise of sidewalk counseling. Thus it does not seem to support the material in the article in anyway. Since the subject matter is said to be sooo easily sourced, wy use such a poor citation? Any objections to a broken citation tag? Dpky (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Who qualifies as "a professional expert on the subject of sidewalk counseling"? Does such a thing even exist? I think your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia has lead you to demand things that are far over and above what is required by Wikipedia practices and policies. Gamaliel (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to present a commonly accepted view of what sidewalk counseling is then why select a source that specificly presents the humanist view over any other? I don't think it would be appropriate to present a citation proported to be from only the pro-life view for example. Even worse, from a blog post. Dpky (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple people have suggested that an alternate source could be substituted. Feel free to suggest one of your preference. This really is completely irrelevant unless there's some actual dispute here regarding the nature of sidewalk counseling. If there is such a dispute, please state it plainly and let us dispense with this tangential discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the commonly accepted view is that protesting outside abortion clinics is protesting outside abortion clinics. Only the activist groups themselves, it seems, see fit to refer to this activity as "counseling".

Gamaliel said it pretty well. Aside from the question of whether it's an incredibly loaded term whose mere usage in a WP article threatens to violate NPOV, is there any actual dispute as to what "sidewalk counseling" refers to? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, In an April 11, 2011 speach to an organization called The Family Leader, Bachman says "we have been sidewalk prayer counselors, we've prayed in front of aborton clinics, we have walked in front of abortion clinics, we handed out material to women, we've also taken unwed women into our home, I've held women's hands in the hospital as they had given birth" (video at 25:35)

Now, what we currently have is a reference to show that she claimed to be a "sidewalk counselor" and a definition of sidewalk counseling that was made out of whole cloth on this talk page. Some have expressed a concern that the term is missleading and I think the above reference can be a way to add some context by presenting her claims to her and her husband's pro-life activity. Dpky (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with doing that. For some reason I don't understand, videos are generally not reliable sources, but as a reinforcement to the source we already have it should be fine. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not totally familiar with WP policies regarding videos but my understanding is that there are three elements to a source (the content [MB's speech], the author [videographer] and the publisher [thefamilyleader.com]). If we simply quote her statement (and not analyze it) then we can ignore the publisher and author (unless someone wants to challenge if this is MB making the speech to this group on this date). The goal is to fairly present the "pro-life" activities of her and her husband. Dpky (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how this contradicts the generally accepted definition of sidewalk counseling as expressed in our WP article on the subject and the material in the disputed section of this article, nor do I see how it justifies the bizarre accusation that editors here are fabricating article content. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We can just agree to disagree for the moment as to whether the description of Sidewalk Counseling is property sourced in the MB article. What this new source can do, is provide a comprehensive presentation of MB and Marcu's "pro-life" activism in general. Not just sidewalk counseling. That as well, I believe, would put the term sidewalk counseling into context without having to define it for the reader. The section in the article is about her early activism after all, is it not. Dpky (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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 if 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)

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)

• 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. 98.92.185.72 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Migraines

I removed the following from the "Husband, children" section. It does not relate to family and its content and context is only of interest in that it could impact on her ability to serve in public office, which, according to the reference, she claims it doesn't. I therefore suggest that, if this information is to be included anywhere, it should be in [Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012].

Bachmann suffers from migraine headaches for which she takes prescription medicine. Reference: [3] Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Noticed that the migraine report has been put back into the article - this time with some context as to the ability to serve as President. I am not going to start an edit war by removing it again, but still think it would be better placed in the presedential campaign article. (I did remove an extra sentence about a reporter being "accosted" by Bachmann staff, which seemed a bit odd in the context of the migraine issue.) Any thoughts? Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly fits under "Personal life". I'm not sure it merits a subsection of its own. If so, perhaps something more generic like "health" wou;d be better.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is fine as a specific health related question, but the anonymous allegations and the presidential aspect are not suited for her BLP. Arzel (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. (6th CD), has issued the following news release: Today, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was admitted to the hospital due to a sudden illness. As a result, she was unable to participate in several votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, July 30, 2010. The Congresswoman is currently resting this evening and on her way to a full and quick recovery.

This is the same illness reported on in The Daily Caller. It apparently affected her congressional career, which is covered at length in this article.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So some anonymous person said. If the people making the claim are not willing to devulge their name with statements like that, then it is nothing more than a rumor and gossip BLP rules expressely state that we do not repeat gossip like this. Furthermore she has denied that the rumor is true. Also, if it were true, then why are we just hearing about it now? Of all the attacks against Bachmann, that she has medical issues which would make it difficult or impossible to do her job has not been one of them. Arzel (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the material back in, now that Politico has offered independent confirmation.[4] Although the sources are anonymous, they're reported in reliable news sources, and the claims are pretty clearcut (without weasel words.) Given the reported source of the comments (many of Bachmann's staffers), it seems relatively reliable. It doesn't make sense to rule out anonymous sources overall - Deep Throat was anonymous, after all.Seleucus (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Politico reported on the same anonymous sources, they are still anonymous and it is still gossip and it is still a violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP. If this turns into a watergate then by all means use your anonymous source, as it is though, it is nothing more than political attacks. Arzel (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's procedures aren't "Never use anonymous sources", but "be wary of anonymous sources." I'm asking what point the story needs to get to (how much reporting, how many independent confirmations, etc.) before they're acceptable.

And also, Politico states that it used completely different anonymous sources. Seleucus (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Don't use anonymous sources for factual information in a BLP to further a rumor and gossip. If these people cannot stand behind their words then their words do not bear repeating here. Arzel (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty outlandish statement in view of the fact that the ability to use anonymous sources has long been a hallmark of independent, reliable journalism. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The illness and hospitalization in July 2010, though brief, did attract a fair amount of attention in news reports at the time. And now it's back in the news. That would seem to meet the threshold for inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  18:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that, with the concrete examples of how this has affected her career, this story merits inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The subject issued a press release announcing the hospitalization and missed votes. The subject has since confirmed that she suffers from migraines. Therefore the only question is whether this hospitalization was due to a migraine, as is being asserted by her anonymous former aides. Since the subject has not released any information to the contrary, then or now, it's a plausible claim. FWIW, her son, who's a medical doctor, has also commented on his mother's migraines.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Just because Bachmann has not said anything contrary doesn't mean it's anything more than a rumor. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a rumor that the subject had a sudden illness in July 2010, and it's not a rumor that the subject suffers from migraines. The subject has made statements about both.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a rumor to say that one caused the other. The is a BLP we require non-anonymous sources for medial conjecture. Arzel (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as a "rumor". Just because a reporter maintains the anonymity of his sources does not mean that he's reporting rumors. If a reporter interviews a person who says "I saw this with my own eyes" then that's not a rumor.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Regradless it is still an anonymous source. If it wasn't such a contencious issue then it wouldn't be as much of an issue. You certainly wouldn't be able to use anonymous sources to make a claim like "I saw her steal that watch". I have listed it at the BLP Message Board. Arzel (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you agree that it's not gossip, then please stop referring to it that way.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My regardless was in reference to your objection. This is a violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP. Arzel (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the clause that says "Be wary of sources that...attribute material to anonymous sources." Note that it warns to be careful, but it does not prohibit the use of sources with unnamed sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored the deleted Migraines section, since it has been the subject of a good deal of commentary and it is not atypical to note a person's medical conditions in BLPs. If there is a desire to address the neutrality of the "fitness to lead" type statement, I would encourage editors to do so without deleting any mention of migraines from the article. Gobonobo ^{T C} 02:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A well sourced BLP violation does not change that it is a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting WP:BLPGOSSIP, which simply doesn't say what you're saying it says. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

sorority sister of Sarah Palin

I've read somewhere that she was a sorority sister of Sarah Palin. Can anyone verify this? Thanks. 80.101.119.181 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it was used as a figure of speech. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It may have been, but I think the comment was meant to be taken literally. 80.101.119.181 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Source? Arzel (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They didn't go to college together. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I guess it was a figure of speech, like Wikipeterproject suggested. 80.101.119.181 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

conversion therapy

I object to the text "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."

The sources linked do not confirm that Marcus Bachmann has denied these alegations. For example, the source http://minnesotaindependent.com/59781/bachmanns-christian-counseling-clinic-receives-state-funds merely says "Dr. Bachmann told the paper that he does not encourage gays to become straight." He later (in another source) clarified that he does not suggest conversion therapy to homosexuals, but if a homosexual explicitly asks for it, he provides it. Therefore the Wikipedia text is wrong - he didn't deny he provides it. Which is why I had changed the text, but user Roscelese changes it back -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not as though the Minnesota Independent source is ambiguous - when it says "Marcus says he doesn't do it," I don't see anything particularly controversial in paraphrasing to "he denies he does it" - but as I already said, the article linked in the MI contains "Marcus Bachmann, who is also 50, denies that is part of his clinic's practice." This has been on record since 2006 - before Michele Bachmann ever held national office, much less ran for president. Recent comments cannot change that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs a section on general reception by various commentators

I just stumbled across a beautifully written editorial by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone,^[5] which seems more than worthy of a mention. And lo and behold, there's not even the beginnings of a section about editorials, endorsements, criticisms, etc. from various columnists and commentators. Not having followed the article, I should ask - am I the first to think about adding these, or did some deletionist chop it all out? Wnt (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you assume good faith before you come in here accusing people of various misdeeds. Do a little research. That article is used five times as a source in this article already. Arzel (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As usual, User:Arzel is being disingenuous. The Taibi source is used only for uncontested facts about Bachman, not for criticism and controversy. - Anon 98.92.. 98.92.185.72 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 98.92.189.102 (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anybody, but yes, I did commit some kind of epic Find malfunction. Letting ^F substitute for eyes is indeed a bad habit to get into, sorry. Wnt (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we limit sources in BLPs to straight news stories rather than opinion pieces like Taibbi's? If straight news stories reference the opinion pieces then maybe we could use the material mentioned in the news story. Drrll (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, opinions about the subject are part of a BLP. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are practically an infinite number of opinion pieces about BLP subjects, so their noteworthiness needs to be established. Just think how many opinion pieces we could stuff into the BLPs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Drrll (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But we don't ignore core policies just because it would be a lot of work to implement them properly. Your previous suggestion directly conflicts with the both the letter and purpose of BLP policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Public image of Barack Obama, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, You Deserve To Know, Jeremiah Wright controversy, Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. We do manage to stuff a lot of "opinion" into political articles. Much of politics consists of opinions. Maybe it's time for Public image of Michele Bachmann?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good way of dealing with it. That way, we can address the information as it deserves without worrying that we might give it undue weight here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, what specific BLP policies conflict with the idea of keeping out opinion pieces from BLPs?

Will, that would certainly be a better place for opinion pieces than the main BLP article. We don't need, however, different standards for different classes of BLPs. If we include an opinion piece by Taibbi in a politician's main BLP, we should be able to put an opinion piece by Stephen F. Hayes into the main BLP of a controversial journalist like Bill Moyers. If we have a Public image of Michelle Bachmann article, why not Public image articles for Dan Rather or Nina Totenberg? Drrll (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't endorse the use of explicit opinion pieces. However determining which articles are op-ed pieces is sometimes difficult, and some opinions are noteworthy. As for Totenberg, she doesn't seem that well-known compared to the subject. Category:Public image of American politicians.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See the section entitled "Criticism and Praise"; it's right near the top of the WP:BLP page. All criticism and all praise reflects somebody's [usually published] opinion. Despite what Will says, I'm not aware of an explicit bar on the use of pieces that reflect an author's opinion of the article opinion, so long as relevant core policies such as Verifiability and NPOV are carefully observed, nor do I see how anything worthwhile could be said in a politician's BLP without such pieces. Could you point me to any policy that supports your recommendation? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any explicit bar on opinion pieces either. In the BLP section you referenced, the following language may apply to opinion pieces: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources." "Secondary" may imply that opinions expressed in primary opinion pieces may need to mentioned in secondary sources to make them noteworthy. At the minimum, both opinions and facts expressed in opinion pieces should be attributed to the author of the opinion piece. Drrll (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your understanding of "secondary sources". I think that terminology is intended to drive a context-specific inquiry that would, for example, seek to prevent the inclusion of tidbits mined from such "primary sources" as committee minutes, court documents, etc., or opinions that are self-published by an author. I don't see an immediate problem with inclusion of any particular opinions published in a reliable source, though obviously third-party sources analyzing or summarizing criticism/praise/opinions are preferable where they are available, and care must be taken to achieve NPOV where such sources are not available. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, this looks like a terrible idea. It will amount to nothing more than the inclusion of paragraphs and paragraphs of sound bites from talking heads. Little of which will be particularly notable in the larger context of the subject. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we observe the "Criticism and Praise" components of BLP policy if we prohibit inclusion of opinions? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We could observe "Criticism and praise" by including only opinions mentioned in other straight news stories. Drrll (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Reception" is a neutral section title often used to hold such material.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, aren't you basically proposing a new BLP rule that doesn't currently exist? This is fairly common. If so, it's more appropriate to bring that up at a relevant WP policy forum rather than try to impose it on an article you're editing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that BLP policy should address this issue head on since opinion pieces about many BLP subjects are so common. Maybe WP:UNDUE would be more applicable to the issue of including opinion pieces in BLPs. Drrll (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So in other words, Yes, you are proposing a new rule that's not currently accepted as part of BLP policy. Don't you think it's possible that current BLP policy reflects a calculated decision to reject the kind of restriction you're suggesting? And of course WP:Undue and WP:NPOV are applicable to use of opinion material in BLPs; that's exactly why I've been saying the additional restriction you suggest is not just counter to actual BLP policy, but also unnecessary. There's nothing wrong with using opinion in the BLPs of politicians, because it's perfectly appropriate for the purpose of building a BLP on politicians, and because other core policies are perfectly well-suited to control the result. As I said, it just means that there's more work to be done by editors in order to achieve NPOV. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am proposing that BLP policy make it clear on that issue. I proposed such at the BLP Talk age (though I doubt something so sweeping would get implemented). Sure it's possible that there was a decision to reject that idea, but I thought I would ask. Drrll (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree that BLPs are supposed to abide by currently accepted policy, as opposed to abiding by the policy changes you'd personally like to see implemented?

Yes, of course. While I agree that BLP policy clearly allows for criticism and praise to be present in BLPs, the policy does not address the use of opinion pieces head on. Such inquiries about use of opinion pieces in BLPs on the WP:BLPN have had unclear results. Drrll (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion and others like it could benefit from some mutual clarification of terminology. I think we agree that criticism/praise are integral to a BLP and also that criticism and praise necessarily reflect somebody's opinion. Further, I think it's not in dispute that a critical or laudatory opinion must have been published to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Though there may not be clear lines to draw in the sand, can we say that the disagreement begins once we're talking about opinions that originate from people who, for lack of a better "box" to put them in, are in the business of publishing? Of course, even if you agree, this provides no ready guide for navigating the disputes that result; a great many people are journalists, authors, and pundits as a sort of side-effect of prominence, fame, or success in other areas, while others might be said to simply be well-known for their writing.

I suppose what I am suggesting is that the relevant questions are those we ordinarily have to answer in order to observe NPOV and Verifiability in the first place. I don't think those goals are well-served by attempting to come up with "bright-line" rules along the lines of "reject opinion piece"/"accept hard news story", even insofar as we would identify what a line like that actually is. I suspect we couldn't put forth too many rules of this type before they started conflicting head-on and we found ourselves constantly trying to sort out which rules took precedence over other conflicting rules (though admittedly, this is already unavoidable with WP policies as well as ones we find in real life). Instead, I think the proper approach may be (God help me) a very searching, case-by-case analysis that essentially, wherever earnest disputes are to be found, takes the form of a big steaming pile of editors arguing on talk pages. Though it's ugly, I'm more than a bit skeptical that a better solution exists.

That said, regardless of the extent to which you agree or disagree with the second paragraph above, I'd like to know whether you think we're on the same page regarding the first paragraph, or whether I've misjudged our dispute. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We do agree that criticism & praise are integral to BLPs, that criticism/praise reflects the opinion of someone, and that criticism/praise must be published to be able to be used in WP. I would say that we disagree about whether stand-alone opinion pieces at all, regardless of who writes them, should be utilized in BLPs. My suggestion to change BLP policy that would exclude use of opinion pieces unless referenced in straight news stories is not going anywhere at Talk:BLP. So we will have to determine on a case-by-case basis what's acceptable and what's not. I would say that yes, WP:NPOV and WP:V apply, but using those alone would allow for something like "Joe Blow thinks that Michele Bachmann is an idiot," since it is neutrally stated and since it is verifiable. I would say that WP:UNDUE is more important of a factor, as well as just how much of a neutral expert a particular person is in regards to the particular issue they are speaking to. What do you think? Drrll (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That was one of my main concerns. It seems to open the floodgates to all sorts of opinion pieces. Drrll (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It just means more work for editors enforcing NPOV. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A BLP is certainly not the place for this type of material. I would support the creation of an article detailing the public image of the subject, but as per WP:BLP there are very strict policies as to what gets put in biographies. Also, as per WP:NOTNEWS just because something appears in a newspaper doesn't mean it should necessarily be in Wikipedia. A lot of information about presidential candidates falls under WP:RECENT and WP:SOAP. Finally, these arguments can easily devolve into political fights that have absolutely no business being part of an encyclopedia. Before suggesting this kind of edit, one needs to be mindful of why they are asking that it be put in: Is is a philosophical point for or against the subject, or a solid addition that will improve an encyclopedic view of the subject's life? SeanNovack (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since citing AGF seems to be in vogue, you might as well strike out that last question as moot; you can simply assume that everyone suggesting an edit thinks that it will be a "solid addition that will improve an encyclopedic view of the subject's life", whatever that means.

That aside, could you point us to a current, active, national-stage politician who's running for POTUS/VPOTUS, and whose BLP reflects the lofty ideological purity you seem to be insisting on? Your listing of various policies seems to have led you to conclusions about BLP policy that I think are fairly far afield of the mark. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As to your first point, I did not accuse anyone of anything. I simply made a suggestion to anyone editing this or any other BLP during the election cycle to consider their edit before they hit "Save". If you can't understand that a BLP is supposed to be an encyclopedic account of a person's life, and not a platform to support or denegrate their candidacy for a particular office, then I suppose the argument is over right now. All I'm doing is stating what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and what Wikipedia policy states we should all be striving for. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to get sloppy here. If you don't like the way other articles are presented or if you feel they are not conforming to Wikipedia policy, then by all means fix it. According to the administrators that have been keeping an eye on various people that have been in the news lately (See: Pippa Middleton, for example]], we should be insisting on strict interpretation of BLP policy. Especially with candidates for major office, my opinion is we should strive to make the articles as neutral and subject-centric as possible - so as not to attempt to affect the outcome of the election one way or the other. SeanNovack (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment on AGF was simply an observation that you should assume that every edit is a thoughtful one.

Comparison of a WP:BLP1E subject with a candidate for President of the United States is just silly and may reflect a poor understanding of policy. In any event, "an admin told me X" is neither a Wikipedia policy nor a basis for one, even less so when the thing the admin told you is hardly relevant to the subject you're arguing about. I have no problem with any particular article; I was challenging you to show me a similar article that accords with your (badly misguided, in my humble opinion) view of policy. WP policy simply does not support a rule or bias in favor of removing sourced, notable criticism of a living person; the relevant policy explicitly says the opposite in plain English. Again, you seem to be name-dropping random policy tags in an effort to argue for a conclusion that is simply not borne out by the more relevant, more central policies: NPOV and BLP. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear. When I brought up the Pippa Middleton article I wasn't referring to a subject only being notable for a single event. If you examine the archived talk pages you will see considerable additions that were removed for being "inappropriate" for a BLP. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pippa_Middleton/Archive_2#May_2011_.245M_offer_to_appear_in_an_adult_film) was the example I was cited on, and while I felt the admin in question was out of line, my report boomeranged and he was supported in the end. I'm only applying the same standards to the other BLP's that I've edited. SeanNovack (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This still seems like a terribly irrelevant example to me. Besides the lewd nature of an adult film offer to an ordinary person (as opposed to a public figure who has affirmatively cultivated a sultry image), do you notice how it reflects no involvement whatsoever by Pippa? This was largely the same as with Sarah Palin when Hustler decided to get some attention by making a porn "about" her. By contrast, where something is said that involves actual conduct or speech by the BLP subject, or that is of substance and relevance to the reasons for the subject's notability, or that reflects genuinely held public opinion about the subject, that's an entirely different matter. I can't think of a more perfect example of material that runs afoul of the BLP proclamation that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" than this attempted reference, by you, to a solicitation for a BLP1E subject to appear in a porn film; it hardly furthers your claim that journalistic opinion pieces should be suppressed as a general rule. The slightest common sense would allow one to distinguish worthwhile publications of opinion from pandering crap such as that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Factchecker atyourservice .. BHO's article would be an example of the "lofty ideological purity" we are asking for. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean the article that talks about, e.g., his struggle to quit smoking – something that isn't even remotely relevant to his policy views and tenure in office (the only reasons for his notability)? Tell me more. And I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that NPOV requires BLPs to be unmarred by published opinion about the BLP subject, since, among other things, WP:BLP explicitly says otherwise. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Brother a regionally-famous tv meteorologist

I've thought of adding a brief mention of the fact Bachmann's younger brother is a regionally-famous tv meteorologist, Gary Amble, with station KCTV, Kansas City. I figured I'd "run it up the flagpole" here first since seemingly everything surrounding her is controversial these days (lol). Here's a couple links to stories confirming the fact: http://bottomlinecom.com/kcnews/amblesfamoussister.html and here: http://wcfcourier.com/iowacaucus/profiles/michele_bachmann/article_5810bcc5-9e07-500d-b5b9-485d9eee4730.html I'll leave it up to others for discussion on whether it has enough relevance to merit inclusion. Just found it a bit interesting. Have a great Wiki kinda day. Sector001 (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)