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)

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

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

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)

Her explicit criticism of discipline against homophobic bullying in her district's schools should, however, be addressed in the article. This is a very important policy issue locally and one in which her stance sets her markedly apart from other politicians and Minnesotans.134.2.243.182 (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

These are currently in separate subsections: Michele_Bachmann#Global_warming, and others such as Michele_Bachmann#Domestic_oil_and_gas_production, and Michele_Bachmann#Light_bulbs. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As the above implies, be more specific when you say "Energy" ... do you intend fossil fuel-based or Renewable energy, or something different? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No response in ten days, Special:Contributions/99.56.123.49 ... ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In this article it states she believes climate change is a hoax ... is that Global warming conspiracy theory "hoax" or that Global warming controversy "hoax", as in Media coverage of climate change? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That Jennifer Edwards piece is from March 15, 2008. Does she still believe/say that? 99.190.86.162 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Did she state "planet's life cycle", sort of Gaia hypothesis/Earth system science? Seems Planetary boundaries related. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a contrast with Global warming is a litmus test for US Republicans - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney crossed a dangerous party line when he stated his belief in anthropogenic climate change from Talk:Mitt_Romney 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That article may be relevant for the Tea Party movement in general but it doesn't name her specifically for the United States presidential election, 2012, regarding Climate change policy of the United States. 99.119.129.32 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but related. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding energy politics here is a link:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2009/04/24/172739/bachmann-harmless-co2/

Thank you for the suggestion Special:Contributions/79.239.50.238 and User:Roscelese (",). User:Arzel (Special:Contributions/Arzel), do not delete others' talk. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian counseling center - reparative therapy

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

Yes I am well aware that the left media is full attack mode regarding Bachmann, and less suprized to see that attack being brought here. Your understanding of Coatrack is severely misunderstood. Media sources often will publish WP:COAT related stories, that they report it doesn't mean that it isn't a WP:COAT problem. We have a higher standard for inclusion of material that pure news sources, especially with regard to BLP articles. The fact remains, this article is about Michele Bachmann, not her husband or her husband's clinical practice. This particular issue reeks of political attack. The James O'Keefe of this story lied and was trying to entrap the Bachmann's, just like the James O'Keefe of Acorn. Yet this story is trumpeted because it promotes a left view, and the activist is a hero to most of the press. If ever there was a story to show the dicotomy of the press today, it is the reaction to this story my the media with it's reaction to the Acorn scandal. As to your last statement, you are correct. There clearly is concensus to trash Bachmann, with that I cannot disagree. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You, yourself, appear to badly misunderstand WP:COATRACK, which does not even remotely say that relevant but controversial matter should be excluded from any article. This article is does not even come close to COATRACK problems; your objection is not well-founded. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't actually read that deeply into this story, so I can't really comment with authority; however, I would question whether you honestly believe that this is an O'Keefe-style "creative editing" hit-job. Remember that Bachmann is on-the-record as calling homosexuality "sexual dysfunction" and "identity disorder". I don't think you'd disagree her opinions on this topic could probably characterized as "far-right". Is it not plausible that somebody holding these kind of opinions would be related to an organization undertaking "reparative therapy"? NickCT (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but your take sounds like OR to me. The activist actively went to the clinic for treatment to remove those feelings under the guise of trying to entrap the thearapist to perform the very treatment he is against. It certainly seems reasonable to me that if you were running a clinic like that, you would do what you could to try and help the people that come to you for help. I personally don't agree with Bachmann's views on GLBT issues, and have relatives and friends, and also roomates that have be all of them. They can do anything they want, I could care less, but I also don't have a problem with someone having a belief opposite. The far left, however, seem to have little tolerance to any view that does not prescibe with their own ironic view of tolerance. The view seems to be I will tollerate you so long as you don't believe anything that I disagree with. Arzel (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Plus, to contend that Michele is somehow uninvolved because her husband runs the business, is kindof invalid argument, because she profits financially from the business. Whatever methods/themes the business employs (if same or different from what's been alleged/reported) is surely something Michele is not "unawares". (They're married for Christ's sake!) What's generally known regarding the staunch conservative religious posture of the Bachmanns, is at least not inconsistent w/ what's been reported/alleged. (Is anyone saying it's inconsistent?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's little here to respond to regarding article content, it's mostly attacks on other editors and anti-media paranoia. As NickCT points out, this has been reported by numerous RS media outlets (all part of the leftist conspiracy, no doubt!) in the context of reporting on Bachmann herself. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The coverage it's been receiving - which discusses what it means for Bachmann, not just for her husband, because she's a part owner of the clinic, because she's been making the business a selling point in her campaign, because she has loads of other anti-gay policies and comments - means it more than merits inclusion and that BLP is more than satisfied. Wikipedia is not censored. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What Roscelese said. If not for her part-ownership and using the clinic as part of her pitch, I'd wonder if it was coatracking, but I feel it's a relevant issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am neutral as to whether this is included, but given that it is in the article, it should be stated in a completely neutral way. I am in favour of stating the basic thrust of what is in the reference and leaving out the commentary. Conceivably, the paragraph could include an extensive discussion of the arguments for an against the therapy - all supported by the references - but that would clearly make the paragraph a COATRACK for the debate. The facts are that 1) there is a counselling business; 2) it has been accused of a certain type of controversial therapy; 3) Bachmann has an interest in the business, which is operated by her husband; 4) the husband denies that the therapy is provided an 5) there are counter claims that, despite the denial, the treatment is/has been carried out nonetheless. Delving deeper into the treatment itself, in my opinion is unnecessary. I am not going to start an edit war by taking out the commentary, but wonder whether we can get consensus to remove the words "a controversial approach, repudiated by the American Psychological Association". If we don't agree to taking out those words, we can't object to anyone who might want to include words arguing why the therapy might be legitimate (noting that the reference provides plenty of material for that). Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It would probably also be relevant to note that the undercover activist actively sought this treatment, or some variation thereof. Arzel (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources also include testimony from a patient who had no desire to change his sexuality. It would also be "relevant" to include that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing the portion about the APA is unwarranted. It's not "opinion" like pundit commentary, it's the leading organization of the field that Dr. Bachmann is a part of, it sets the standards of that field. The fact that this therapy is rejected and controversial is the entire reason this is even an issue. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Won't the adjective "controversial" to describe the therapy cover that? The greater debate around the inclusion of the issue is whether it is/will become a COATRACK. There is a risk that "the other side" of the argument can add the reasons why they believe the therapy to be legitimate and the whole section becomes a quasi discussion about the therapy, in which case the inclusion of the material becomes a soapbox rather than useful encyclopedic information about the article's subject. Conversion therapy is linked in the article, so anyone who wants to find out why it is controversial need only click on the link... Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial" is vague and inadequate when used alone. If it were merely a matter of unpopularity, then "controversial" would suffice. But this issue is about professional standards, not unpopularity, and the APA sets professional standards in Dr. Bachmann's field. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be. For the sake of readability, can we at least word it this way: "Marcus Bachmann has denied allegations that Bachmann & Associates provides conversion therapy, a controversial psychological treatment repudiated by the American Psychological Association, which attempts to transform homosexuals into heterosexuals."? Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeter, wouldn't your concern about inclusion resulting in COATRACK/soapbox be controlled by WP:UNDUE? What's the difference between this and a generalized conspiracy theory (moon landing hoax, etc.)? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ihardlythinkso. WP:UNDUE certainly applies. I just wanted to be completely sure that, in discussing this issue, we don't jump out of one ditch and jumping right into the other - i.e. consensus to include the section, doesn't give licence for other editors to use the consensus to then emphasize their position/opinion (not opinion about the the therapy, but about the article's subject). It's not a case of "winner takes all" in a consensus debate. Having said that, and having flagged this as a risk, I am OK with the whole lot staying in and watching it for both COATRACK and UNDUE developments. Hopefully we can at least agree to tidy up the prose as above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• There being no further discussion, I have rewritten the sentence to read as proposed above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"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)

I fail to see how this is anything but sidestepping the issue of context and NPOV. Yes, the quote goes into more detail about her pro-life activities other than sidewalk counseling, but does nothing to discuss what a sidewalk counselor is. Gamaliel (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the desire to not leave the term "Sidewalk counseling" unexplained but there is really no good way to describe it without injecting POV. We seem to disagree as to whether the definition provided is properly sourced and NPOV, so I'm trying to provide a way to place it into context with her other pro-life activism so that the need to explain it goes away. Adding context and relavant material should be preferable, remember, the subject in this section is Bachmann's early activism - not Sidewalk counseling. Dpky (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the article currently does a good job of that, and no one has yet come forth with some kind of coherent explanation of why is so offensive about the current version, just a lot of tangential complaints about humanism and so forth. Gamaliel (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Those were not complaints about humanism but rather noting that the cited article was self described as coming from a humanist POV which means it is POV and it is POV on a blog without any indication as to why the blog or the author should be considered notable and reliable sources. Furthermore, it was that authors POV of Sidewalk counseling in general, not any analysis of Bachmann's pro-life activism. (remember, in the quote he cites, Bachmann is praising other's activism, not particularly her own).

As for what is offensive. I wouldn't say it is offensive but rather poiint of view. For example, it describes Sidewalk counseling as "protest" and while certainly there is a protest element to it, other points of view consider it to be more of an intervention based in a spiritual conscience and love for others only with complete strangers.

If I could go back and do this conversation all over again, I think I would have objected to the proposed solution of all of us trying to agree on a disclaimer as to what Sidewalk counseling is. The solution I'm proposing is to place it into context of all of her pro-life activism. Dpky (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you actually bother to read WP:NPOV, you'll see that NPOV is a rule for making a balanced presentation of multiple POVs.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But it still leaves us with the NPOV issue of describing protest activity or spiritual activity or whatever you want to term it as "counseling". This quote does not address that at all, it just puts forth the same POV description in a different manner. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree about the need for and sourcing of a sidewalk counseling disclaimer but I sense there is no material objection to adding this new quote from Bachmann. (Leaving the disclaimer in tact for the moment). So, the remaining question is: should it be included as a quote of Bachmann or should Bachmann's claims be assumed factual and written as such? I assume a direct quote is more appropriate as the source offers no analysis of her statements. Dpky (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Add the quote if you like, but attribute it to Bachmann and leave the "disclaimer" alone, please. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:07, 30 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 is noteworthy, then it is just as relevant as talking about the step-sibling's pets, favorite food or football team. While the inclusion of the fact, without any context may not breach WP:UNDUE - it's just useless information that has nothing at all to do with MB. If context can be added without breaching OR, NPOV or UNDUE policy guidelines, then great...but I think it will be a real challenge for any editor to weave in that context in a meaningful way. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I will not even respond about "campaign against gay people." Please stop trying to polemicize Wikipedia. Second, I am not saying that the existence of the step-sister is gossip; I am saying that telling readers she enjoys same-sex sexual activity is gossip. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

JP, you're only digging yourself deeper into that hole with every comment you make. WPP, do you have a draft wording in mind? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I just hope one day you will realize that not everything is political intrigue, and that not every person who disagrees with you has a "far-right agenda". Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, let me return to the point and repeat that Encyclopedia Britannica would never include this kind of gossip, even if space is not an issue.

Second, in this Wikipedia article, even being onlline space is an issue. This article is humongous (27 pages), and this makes the inclusion of gossip even less advisable. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• The New York Times doesn't report it as gossip. The quote is: "Her passion proved too much for her stepsister, Helen LaFave, who is openly gay and turned up for a hearing on the bill. “She saw us — you could see the shock on her face,” said Linda Cielinski, another stepsister who was there. “I don’t think she has any idea how badly she’s hurt our side of the family, and I don’t think she cares.”" --John (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is gossip used as political intrigue; that many media organizations that hate MIchele's positions are running this does not make it encyclopedic. Encyclopedia Britannica would never run this. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how it is presented, the larger problem is that only one person of her extended family was mentioned. Why was that one person mentioned? Because she is gay. From what I have seen on other BLP's is that only immediate family members are mentioned unless they are related to a otherwise notable person. LaFave has no notability of her own (notablity is not inherited). It is no coincidence of why this kind of material is being put into the article. Arzel (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is that such a problem? Please bring any other reliably sourced material (the NYT is an excellent source) and you can freely add it to the article. If the NYT sees fit to report it, I do not see why we cannot. --John (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If it were only the NYT I'd support removing it, since that's basically a passing mention, but other reliable news sources have had entire articles on LaFave. But the point you're making to Arzel is basically sound - that NOTINHERITED is a policy that governs us, not a policy that we use to second-guess reliable sources when they cover family members of a notable person. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break for consensus debate

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

• Remove the reference to the sexual orientation of the step-sister unless some serious context is provided that makes it relevant to the subject of the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove/Rewrite - The context is that Bachman has made "anti" gay comments, so the sexual orientation of family members who comment could be relevant if, big if, their commentary is worthy of inclusion, has reached the level of coverage that warrants it. Again, a stand alone sentence about a step sister being gay, is not the way to go, imho, thats all. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

maybe...The New York Times quoted Bachmann's stepsister Linda Cielinski as saying “She saw us(Cielinski and another stepsister, Helen LaFave, who is openly gay) — you could see the shock on her face, I don’t think she has any idea how badly she’s hurt our side of the family, and I don’t think she cares.”....--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove As an outside editor, all I can say is that unless a broad base of sources are reporting on the sexual orientation (and name) of her step-sister, those details should be removed per WP:UNDUE, and various WP:BLP policies like WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPNAME, WP:NPF, WP:BLPGOSSIP etc. aprock (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove As per WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. As to whether or not more than one paper picked it up, see WP:OTTO. This is a BLP on an encyclopedia people, not a place for political debate or personal commentary. SeanNovack (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove, not notable and not relevant and not providing any insight. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove, step sister is not notable by herself and the edit adds nothing relevant to the biography IMO. 72Dino (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove. Wikipedia is not Gossip Central. In fact, remove also the sentence "The New York Times quoted another stepsister Linda Cielinski as saying “She saw us — you could see the shock on her face, I don’t think she has any idea how badly she’s hurt our side of the family, and I don’t think she cares”. If a symmetric thing happened with the Nancy Pelosi article, I would support removal too. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the Rachel Maddow show. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Include, it's well-sourced and directly relevant to the reason for Bachmann's notability; that is, directly relevant to her status as a public figure and candidate for national office. The rest of you are just Wikilawyering, and frankly, of those voting to remove, only Three is making any effort towards a real consensus, which is not the same thing as attempting to secure a majority vote in support of one's own unyielding position. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

??? That's a bit harsh! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I'd say it's pretty fair. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A bit harsh that you are implying that I, and other editors, have an agenda. I don't. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, looks like you need to read WP:AGF. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently AGF'ing really, really hard. Now what about WP:CONSENSUS? Saying "you need to AGF" is not a way to end a substantive discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You and I have had disagreements in the past, but this isn't personal. When it starts getting difficult to assume good faith and emotions are running that high, a short break might do some good. It has for me in the past. SeanNovack (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have misread my comment; try again. No emotion on my part involved and no need to take a break. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep in some form. The Daily Mail (not exactly a liberal bastion), National Journal, Atlantic, New York Magazine, and Salon have all run articles specifically on her, and she's also discussed in other articles on Bachmann's campaign. We can't pretend that she doesn't exist and that reliable sources haven't mentioned her in connection with Bachmann's anti-gay policies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I second this. I see this as being notable and relevant to her social stance. 69.132.111.27 (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a place to promote a political point of view. Arzel (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove WP:UNDUE The focus on one relative that happens to be gay is being done for purely political purposes and push a specific point of view. Arzel (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of ridiculous comment I was referring to as Wikilawyering above. I'm not even sure what to make of the phrasing "focus on one relative who happens to be gay". The gay person also "happens to be" Bachmann's relative and "happens to have been" personally hurt by her hyperbolic political grandstanding on homosexuality – as, apparently, have other relatives on that side of the family – which is exactly why the NY Times "happened to cover" the story. It's not some freaky accident; it's direct commentary on her political views, which are the only reason she's notable. It's painfully a non-issue that the bit is politically charged, because Bachmann is a politician with controversial views, and covering those views, as well as notable and relevant reactions to them, is emphatically within the purpose of a WP BLP. The complaint that the article itself, or editors wishing to reference it, intend to "push a specific point of view", is also quite intellectually dishonest, or else reflects a basic failure to understand WP:NPOV, which certainly does not contemplate that articles will be opinion-free, not even in BLPs and especially not when the subject is a high-profile, active politician. Rather, articles are supposed to reflect opposing views, without showing favor to any of them.

Any counterpoints to the relative's complaint by Bachmann or her supporters would, of course, be fit for inclusion as well. The fact that there's nothing one could really say in response without looking like a total monster ("Well, she shouldn't have been born into our family if she doesn't like my views on homosexuality"; "Well, she shouldn't have chosen to lead a morally abhorrent lifestyle"; etc.; etc.) is not Wikipedia's problem; it's the subject's problem for putting such outrageous views on the national table for discussion. Anyway, I just wanted to flag that these claims of concern for "BLP policy" and "NPOV" are not actually grounded in policy, but simply reflect an inappropriate inclination to suppress unfavorable commentary on the subject of the article – an approach which is, in fact, specifically prohibited by both BLP and NPOV. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A BLP is not a place to talk about the hurt feelings of the subject's relatives. And this talk page is not a WP:FORUM. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Utter bullshit straw-man. A BLP is absolutely the place to talk about such hurt feelings when those hurt feelings are well-sourced and relevant to the subject's notability. Your WP:FORUM comment is utterly misplaced and irrelevant, and you ought to strike it out; my entire comment above was about the article and how to properly abide by policy while writing and editing it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How are they in any way relevant and important? A public figure's family is not notable unless they are notable in their own right. In this case, it's one quote from one article that means nothing to the encyclopedia. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Flat wrong. Numerous stories in reliable sources have covered the family-member-alienation bit. The relevance, meanwhile, has already been explained numerous times throughout this page. Those explanations either persuade you, or they don't, and there's no need for anyone to keep repeating them. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Make your point and let the consensus debate run its course. WP:BLUDGEON refers. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to meritless claims and accusations of policy breach is not what WP:BLUDGEON refers to, even if it takes the form of comments appearing amidst a straw poll. Please note that I have not persisted in reverting or inserting anything on this subject; I said my peace several days ago and have subsequently only responded where someone was making an accusation of bad faith or other improper conduct. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was agreeing with your comment! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies.. as you can see from my comment, I thought you were criticizing me for responding to too many comments in this section. :-\ Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. This is obviously significant since gay marriage opposition is one of her signature issues, and this is well sourced and widely noted. Not everything that may potentially make Bachmann look bad to someone somewhere on the planet Earth is "gossip". Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove, So I guess those who want it in just want it for the irony? It is safe to say that those who want to include it are doing to portray Bachmann as some sort of hypocrite for being anti-gay while having a gay step-sister. Truthsort (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

AGF, Brosef, and I'll note that despite voting on the subject, you haven't presented any policy justification for removal. Anyway, I highly doubt anyone wants it in for the "irony"; nor is it hypocritical in any way, since Michele herself isn't gay. Those who want it in, want it in because it's well-sourced, notable criticism that's relevant to her own notability. She's a prominent politician with deliberate, high-profile anti-gay platform; it's hardly surprising that opposing voices wind up receiving substantial coverage in the maintstream media, and little more than a coincidence that some of those voices happen to be from within her family. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove per WP:NOTNEWS; this is the kind of petty stuff that gives wikipedia a bad name. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, far worse is the activist-minded 'editors' who camp these articles and keep out anything they dont like. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.185.72 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 98.92.189.102 (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?

• Given that there has been no further discussion for a few days, I believe it is time to decide whether a consensus has been reached, based on the above discussion. Given that I initiated the consensus debate, I don't think that I am the right person to make the call. Is there anyone (independent of the debate) who wants to do this for us? Any ideas?

Based on the uncompromising and standoffish tone of the discussion, and the fact that the result was more of a "Yes or no" vote than a debate, I'd suggest running this up the flagpole at BLP/N or another noticeboard that focuses on NPOV. In my opinion, the purported policy justifications for removal, where they are offered, are conclusory and more than a bit questionable – with a couple of exceptions, e.g. the comment by you (which accurately reflected policy, IMO) and the comment by Three (which suggested a path to compromise between the opposing sides).

I don't think a straw poll among interested editors is the way forward. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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: [1] 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.[2] 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)

Needs a section on general reception by various commentators

I just stumbled across a beautifully written editorial by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone,^[3] 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)

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

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

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

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

I think the whole sentence should be struck. The source is a newspaper article in which the report states that Bachmann advocates teaching creationism. But no direct quote from Bachmann is provided to substantiate that claim. The context here is Bachmann's sponsorship of a bill in the Minnesota legislature, a bill which is widely reported on as "requiring the teaching of creationism." But here is the actual text of the bill: "Notwithstanding any rule or law to the contrary, when science academic standards are taught that may generate controversy, including biological evolution, the curriculum must help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society. A quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science." To say that the bill would have required teaching creationism in schools is to make an interpretation that goes well beyond what the bill actually says. I don't see how it is an established NPOV fact that Bachmann advocates the teaching of "creationism" in public schools. Mrhsj (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "established NPOV fact", but I would say that this could only refer to a fact that's so uncontroversial it is unlikely to be disputed and thus need not even be cited to a source per WP:RS. Things like "the earth is roughly round and revolves around the sun", or "the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima". Practically nothing that gets discussed in a politician's BLP is going to meet these conditions. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's actually the exact opposite of how we should be handling the sources. The text of the bill is a primary source, so we cannot interpret it ourselves - rather, we must go with what secondary sources, like the newspaper, say. The newspaper reports that Bachmann wishes to have creationism taught in schools, and indeed does provide a quote. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. If we have to rely on that article, I note that what the article actually says Bachmann advocates is the "discussion" of creationism. That's not the same as "teaching" creationism. (Compare "social studies class must discuss racism" and "social studies classes must teach racism.") I'd be fine with revising the sentence to "Bachmann supports the discussion of creationism in public school science classes." Mrhsj (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A more recent report with more specific quote:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/michele-bachmann-intelligent-design-evolution_n_879618.html
• http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/17/bachmann-schools-should-teach-intelligent-design/

Fat&Happy (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a very selective and misleading reading of an article that clearly is discussing the prospect of teaching creationism, and uses that exact term throughout the article, more or less interchangeably with "discussion". I suppose we can leave aside the notion that any form of discussing creationism in science class, other than to say it's pseudoscience, would amount to "teaching" creationism, since even "teaching" kids that there is supposedly a scientific controversy in the first place invites them to believe that there actually is such a scientific controversy, and thereby encourages them to accept creationism at a time when they are not well-educated enough to know better.

However, please also note that although the current source would seem preferable to the other sources you cite – it's an actual local newspaper from the relevant region that gives a fairly in-depth treatment to the topic, quoting multiple relevant people (including Bachmann) at length, rather than just two short blog snippets merely quoting a single statement by Bachmann – even the sources you suggest indicate that she supports teaching intelligent design.

As Mrhsj above you notes, this was all in the context of debate over a bill Bachmann supported which was "widely reported on as 'requiring the teaching of creationism.'" The widely reported or predominant view is the one that gets the most weight, per WP:UNDUE, and we shouldn't strive to make tenuous interpretations of sources for the purpose of, or with the effect of, contradicting the predominant view. Minority views should only be cited to sources that genuinely present those minority views, and WP:FRINGE views should not be presented at all. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please try to distinguish comments by two different editors in your responses, rather than attributing the opinions of one and the neutral addition of sources by another as being from the same person. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you'd be careful to follow the convention of indenting your comments one space further than the comment you're replying to. This makes it easier for other editors to tell where one comment ends and the next begins. I apologize if you were offended by my confusion but, please note that it was quite understandable. That said, it does not really change the substance of my comments to address them exclusively to Mrhsj. The point remains intact. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And it would help if, before lecturing me on proper spacing technique, you noticed that my post was properly indented when posted. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

There appears to be an edit war over this. If it continues we should protect the page until it can be resolved.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite over the change in terminology itself. Even the editors who opposed this change appear to have taken it in stride. There is a brand-new user who insists that there must be a category applied, and that the appropriate category is "Creationists". However, we don't have any source substantiating that Bachmann actually believes in Creationism, which she would have to in order to be a "Creationist". By contrast, the previous category, "intelligent design advocates", is possibly consistent with her comments in the Stillwater Gazette article, which includes the following:

"The more Bachmann examines the 'universe and the natural world,' she said, 'the more convinced I am, personally, that this world was created by an intelligent being.'"

It's somewhat debatable whether using that as a reference for including her in an "intelligent design advocates" reflects WP:SYN, since that category refers to "proponents" and as such doesn't unquestionably refer to people who actually subscribe to the viewpoint (note, she seems to stop short of unequivocally saying she does subscribe to it), but using any of the sourcing we've got as a basis for including her in a "creationists" category absolutely reflects WP:SYN. That aside, I'm not aware of any policy requiring WP articles to demonstrate a rigid internal consistency such that application of a category absolutely must match the article itself in the way it uses terminology.

This is more breath than I had hoped to waste on the subject, and meanwhile the chap who created his account today (apparently to persist in the edit war he began yesterday) cannot even be bothered to post on the talk page, much less actively solicit the opinions of other editors regarding an edit he wants to make. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Federal Home Loan

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

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

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

The recent edit from Hcobb is far better. Not sure it is notable, but it is at least balanced and neutral. Arzel (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I clarified that the WaPo article points out Bachmann isn't alone in taking advantage of federal programs she criticizes. Since the whole point of the article is to note that supposed anomaly, if the article is used at all it's only fair to include both the supposed anomaly and the observation that it's not necessarily all that anomalous. We don't just list random references of fact without giving any context or explaining their significance to the reader. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that anyone that has purchased a home knows that the borrower only deals with the financial institution. The financial institution is the one dealing with FNMA and FHLMC. Not quite sure how this is relevant to this article. 72Dino (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, government interest-rate subsidies become a basic fact that determines market behavior. By analogy, it'd be silly to argue that someone has no right to criticize the administration of social security unless they refuse to collect their checks after paying into the system their whole life. At the same time, we say what sources say, and this will probably get more press; in my opinion it's better to give a fair presentation of the material and let the reader realize there's not much to it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

debt ceiling

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

Schaeffer and dominionism

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

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

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

I tend to agree with Metal.lunchbox here. It is quite common for articles about politicians (or anyone else, really) to contain things that are being reported about the person, as long as long as the information is notable and verifiable. The article doesn't say that Bachmann is a dominionist; that would not be verifiable. But there are some notable, verifiable reports that she might be influenced by dominionism, and they should stay in, in my opinion. --Dawn Bard (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

School reform will lead to Holocaust

• Bachmann in '02: School reform will lead to Holocaust.91.39.78.175 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Many reliable secondary sources state that Bachmann is careless with the facts and often makes things up but I'm not sure if there's any place in the article for it. I think we'll just have to outline her positions, give a few quotes and let the readers make their own judgements, like we do already. It is however a scientific fact that 94.3% of education reform initiatives lead to at least one holocaust. - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We can state (and in the sub-article on Bachmann's 2012 campaign, we do) as a general fact that she has this problem, but it's totally unnecessary to catalog each and every fabrication. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the inclusion of such a statement, but I looked through the article and just couldn't find a place I thought should include it. If someone else can integrate this into the article in a neutral and elegant way then go for it. see New Yorker for one source. another from the AP and CBS news - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann's Christian credentials

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