Talk:Michele Bachmann

Same Sex Marriage "Ban"

In the state senate section: Same sex marriage is a little too general in this case as it includes private marriage ceremonies not invoolving the state. The proposed law would have denied official legal recognition of same sex marriages not actually ban them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose using the more neutral term "marriage amendment" in this case because the subject of the proposed law was to amend the state constitution to more specifically define the paramaters of marriages that may be granted legal recognition by the state and not a ban on gay marriages. The distinction is important as there actually were (until the US supreme court nocked them down) so called sodomy laws that actually did ban gay marriage and relations. Those are completely different from what this particular legislation proposed. Dpky (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So...

What WAS she looking at, anyway? Does anyone know? All I can find are dumb jokes. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

She was looking at the cameras from the Tea Party group that set up the response. CNN decided to use their own cameras instead of the Tea Party feed, but neglected to tell Bachman, so it is a CNN Fail. Arzel (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh so it was CNN's fault she looked stupid, gotcha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.17.115 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann comes out as birther-curious

• Bachmann comes out as birther-curious, salon.com, Thursday, Feb 17, 2011
• How can Michele Bachmann be president if she won't release her birth certificate?, salon.com, Thursday, Mar 17, 2011.--87.145.8.253 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish to add a Citation Needed tag to the article's assertion that Bachmann was born in Iowa. I read the policy, which states: "To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an uncited claim by inserting a Citation needed tag." I understand that Bachmann's backers will interpret this as harassment. But objectively speaking, her stated place of birth is an uncited claim. I am unable to add the tag because I'm not a registered user or frequent editor. But I don't think the lock on the page should be used to prevent the customary use of Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.236.139 (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Bachmann was born Michele Marie Amble in Waterloo, Iowa, 'into a family of Norwegian Lutheran Democrats'"appears to be properly sourced, so I see no basis for a {{Citation needed}} tag. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect year of marriage

I notice that the page states Michele Bachmann was married in 1981 and it appears this fact is not cited. I found that U.S. News and World Reports, the New York Times, and Minnesota Monthly all state that her marriage occurred in 1978. Source links: [1], [2], [3].

Note: Because Michele Bachmann is a client of my employer (see my user page), per WP:COI, I will not make the change myself. Additionally, this is my first Talk page posting, so I welcome the community's advice for improving future edit suggestions and discussion posts. CS Katie (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)CS_Katie

 Done. The 1981 seems to have been added about a week ago; it may have been based on a rather loose interpretation of the statement on her congressional website biography that they have been married "for more than thirty years". Thanks. (BTW, I don't think changing a minor fact based on three reliable sources (though I only used one) would be seen as a COI violation, but I guess your caution is a good idea overall.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit and the COI advice. I will air continue to air on the side of caution, accompanying any edits or suggestions with discussion and disclosure. CS Katie (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life vs Anti-abortion

For this article, I recommend using the term pro-life rather than anti-abortion where possible for the following reasons.

1. Abortion is a surgical operation that is much more general than the specific elective abortions that are typically the topic of debate so to say someone is anti abortion is too broad of a charge. (For example, clearing a misscarriage is technically an abortion)

2. Anti-abortion in Wikipedia automatically redirects to pro-life indicating that pro-life is the more accepted term of consensus.

3. There can be no internal link to Anti-abortion

4. This is a biography of a live person and thus the less contraversial language must be preferred.

Dpky (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Pro-life is the accepted term and "anti-abortion" strikes me as loaded language (although there are pro-life people who wouldn't object to it, I'm sure). We wouldn't call a pro-choice rally "pro-abortion". — anndelion ❋ 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur; (based primarily on point #2). Fat&Happy (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, "pro-life" means "anti-abortion" while "pro-choice" means " in favor of having the choice between the two options". It is not a lie to use the two terms interchangeably. It is a lie to use "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" as this implies that those who are pro-choice want every fetus aborted.--Drdak (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an acceptable description of a common POV; it is not an NPOV statement. I believe the two terms were originally "abortion-on-demand", and "anti-abortion". My understanding is that advocates of the latter changed first to "pro-life", then the former changed to "pro-choice", and later "abortion-rights-advocate". You can choose either pair, but to pick from the first set for one side and from the second set for the other shows clear bias. If you want to get technical, anyone who accepted abortion to save the life of the mother is not 100% "anti-abortion", and most "pro-choice" advocates consider that abortion is the better choice in a certain set of cases. If one is "pro-infanticide", does that mean that one believes in wiping out the human race? So there is no "true" or "false" here, although there is The Truth (TM).(MZK1)62.219.96.2 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Country of Birth

The POTUS recently expressed his concerns regarding the country of birth of Michele Bachmann. She may have been born in Canada according to the president. I think wikipedia should add a note saying her place of birth is subject to speculation to prevent misinforming the public.

87.212.76.172 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of adding a note, we should continue to ignore the nonsense. Making an obvious joke is not the same as expressing concerns...--Onorem♠Dil 23:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This article has yet to provide a link confirming Michelle's birth place. It is worth a note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.238.57 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Several of the current references include notes about her Iowa birthplace. --Onorem♠Dil 00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but she has not released her long-form birth certificate. This at least deserves a brief note in the article, as her refusal to do so is noteworthy considering her calls for the current President to do the same.151.213.42.179 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:POINT for any further discussion of this topic. SeanNovack (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys are doing wonders for your argument by deleting comments from people who are voicing their opinion on the matter. As it stands, no one yet has provided a citation, just claiming they must be there does not mean there are citations, and until someone sources a reputable citation, there shall be needed a Citation Needed. Rab777hp (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Foster Parent

I added foster parent to the introduction because:

1. For some time this article has been tagged as lacking an introduction that sufficiently summarizes its content.
2. One of the primary purposes of an article's introduction is to state what makes the subject noteworthy. While being a foster parent alone does not make someone noteworthy, the large number of foster children adds to Bachmann's other noteworthy accomplishments. In other words, while most politicians have some ancillary accomplishments in their past, foster parenting dozens of teens is not a common one.
3. The citation provided shows that Bachmann is being noted specifically for her foster parent accomplishments in addition to her political accomplishments. Dpky (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Time Gala Photo

• 
• 
• 
• 

I deleted the 2011 Time 100 Gala photo for several reasons

1. It was placed in a section for Bachmann's early life though the image is very recent
2. It is not an image of Bachmann in her professional role but rather is an image of her in a social setting. That would be fine if it were placed in a section about her social life.
3. It did not seem to serve any purpose other than to depict Bachmann (a live person) outside of professional dress. (Even-though she otherwise looks pretty darn good in the picture and appropriately dressed for a Gala) Dpky (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to put the photo back up, but I disagree with your reasoning. 1) the photo wasn't in her early life section, but her family life, which is current (although still not the best placement); 2) not all images need to be in a professional role, but this is not a 'social setting' - it was a gala dinner for the Time 100, which was honoring Bachmann as 'one of the most influential people in the world', so this was more professional than social, and given the people who find it worth their while to attend[4][5], a relatively high honor; and 3) "professional dress" I don't know what that means, since she was dressed to the nines that night, as she was one of the honorees. A minor point: this article has mostly lousy images - three official portraits (which look weird, all three on there), a poorly-shot, far-away from her on a stage with lots of crowd at a tea partier event, and another of the side of her head. It seems an odd choice to remove a decent photo at an event where she was given a high honor. --David Shankbone 21:36, 6 May 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)

Past Occupations

The article's intro reads, "Some of Bachmann's past occupations include earning a Master of Laws degree..." LOL. WTF? I've never heard of the "earning of a degree" being a recognized occupation. Lawyer2b (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Flourescent Light Bulbs

I deleted the quote from the trade group because:

1. This article is not about the trade group or its opinions,
2. This article is a goiod place to note Bachmann's positions but not a good place to debate their merits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, what this article "is not" would be a platform for uncritical presentation of Bachmann's views. That would be Townhall, or her campaign web site. Her biography here presents her political views and reliably sourced commentary on on those views. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What is more relevant and significant here - that she made statements that were fundamentally incorrect in justifying her proposed legislation, that a trade group pointed out that they were incorrect, that a trade group said they were incorrect, or that she was criticized by the trade group (or others) on the basis for making incorrect statements? As it is, it kind of reads like "MB said gravity pushes things away from earth. The national association of earth responded that gravity actually pulls things towards the earth." Is there sourced scientific consensus apropos of her statements that she's wrong about the blubs? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to present all significant views on a topic. We don't need to prove that a view is right or wrong. So if the subject has made a statement and others have responded, then we should include a summary of those responses. However we do need to keep the focus on the subject and avoid devoting too much space to side issues. If the subject continues to grow more prominent we may need to split off a "Political views of Michele Bachmann" article.   Will Beback  talk  03:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - (sourced as) right or wrong is a key issue in an encyclopedia. We're a compendium of human knowledge on various topics, not a compendium of who scores points in a political debate. If she made claims that the weight of sources react to by saying they are inaccurate, the encyclopedic take-away is that she made an inaccurate statement. If she made claims that created a controversy, that's the issue. If she made claims that affected her political standing, that is. But again an account that adopts the focus and tone of the political news cycle -- "MB: up-is-down [cite political news of the day]"; "MB detractor reacted by saying: up is up [cite political news of the day]" -- isn't encyclopedic. The latest edits, which I've reverted,[6] take this political scorekeeping to a higher level among other flaws. They also argue against the factual accuracy of her statements directly, without proper secondary sourcing to context, relevance, and weight. Wikidemon (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all those thoughts but if we take that route (presenting responses and fact checking her statements) then this may turn into a political battle within the article. For example, the trade group states that the mercury is offset by reductions in mercury emissions from coal power plants. Well, that neglects that a) the flourescent bulb mercury is in your living room carpet b)not all power is generated by coal c) coal power plants may filter the mercury emmissions d) the trade group itself may need to be fact checked and that would be an unfortunate use of space in this article.

I would much rather we present the statements and let the reader decide. Is this a biagraphical article or a fact check piece? Dpky (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't let the reader decide on factual issues. We present the world according to the weight of the sources, not everybody's political argument about the world (unless the argument itself, or the making of it, are themselves noteworthy per the sources). - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like WP:OWN. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? No, use of the royal we refers to how Wikipedia is set up, not any particular editor's opinion about things. The subject of most articles is the thing itself, not political gamesmanship over the thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the quote of NEMA calling the concerns overblown because in the sourced document the statement is never specifically attributed to NEMA (beside that NEMA's opinion may be irrelevant and not noteworthy). Dpky (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion

According to the Daily Kos article referenced, Bachmann belongs to a church affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, NOT the Lutheran Church-- Missouri Synod, as the Wikipedia article states.76.9.104.205 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

DK is not a reliable source. Also, the DK source is using a dead link as the basis for the claim. I removed the DK source per WP:RS Arzel (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

bachmann bathroom scandal in 2005

There's no mention of Bachmann claiming members of a gblt group held her hostage in an airport bathroom in 2005. The purported kidnapping of a state senator by gay activists and following police report that Bachmann filed are definitely notable enough to warrant mention in this article. There's already a footnote, number 130, so I assume someone removed information about it from the article previously. Stavrogin2 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

However, if it is to be put in, it must have both sides of the argument. Since the ladies in question say that she wouldn't answer them, and fled to the bathroom, we would need to put both sides of the story. I don't have the specific article that has them both, but I know it is out there. --Catonsunday (talk) 21:21, 16 June 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)

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.

Header notability

Shouldn't the fact that she is running for president be in the header? I would say it's currently the most notable thing about her (or the second most), especially for those (like myself) who live outside the U.S. (MZK1) 62.219.96.2 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in the first sentence. --Onorem♠Dil 17:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Still WELS member?

Is Michele Bachmann still a WELS member? I´ve heard that she left WELS months ago and joined a non-dem church. Satora Belu (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw something similar, but I thought it said she remained Lutheran but switched to a church affiliated with the Missouri Synod instead of WELS. But I couldn't find anything in a recent Google search; do you have any acceptable sources stating the change? Fat&Happy (talk) 17:26, 18 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.

Consistent spelling of name

1L Michele, 2N Bachmann. Neither is the most common spelling, so care is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkchaser (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll do a CTRL-F hunt and try to correct some of the errors. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 [7]

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)

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)

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)

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)