Talk:Michele Bachmann

This is English WIkipedia

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

The French "née" is widely used as a loan word in English when referring to maiden names. See Married and maiden names. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If "née" is French for "born", then shouldn't we just say "born"? This is, after all, the English version of WP. I'm educated and well read, and this is the first time I've ever come across this particular "loan word". Think about it: what percentage of the English speaking population do you think is more familiar with "née" than "born"? Everyone knows what "born" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.128.11 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this used for many decades. It is loan word like "rendezvous". It's also in the English dictionary here. Lets use it... Dinkytown talk 14:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Maiden names

It is absolutely standard practice in biographical info in the English language, including on English Wikipedia.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Ok, I have to apologise and retract that post. I just checked out NapoliRoma's profile. And yes, without question, this is definitely the American Who Has Lived In Europe And Has A Blog. Mardiste (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.33.197.128, 18 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

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

That's more of a presidential campaign issue. I suggest adding it there instead.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? She went out of her way to mention it as a political position. Arzel (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

She made the campaign promise during her presidential campaign, so that's the most appropriate place for it.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Christianity and the Constitution

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

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

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

Natural disasters as warning messages from God

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was a clear joke and has no long lasting value. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of material, information must be viewed for its long term value. We have to be reasonable here. It has reached a point that everything this women says is now somehow a controversy. Recentism is as good of a reason as any for why this should not be included. She makes a clearly joking statement, and the left media goes crazy trying to turn it into a manufactured controversy that will be forgoten in a week. Are people here so quick to demonize this woman that everything, regardless of comman sense is included? This is a clear violation of WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT and as was presented WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Fact Checker, why don't you go check some of the facts that Obama has made, like 57 states, corpseman, what MoH is still living, what his bowling skills are like, etc. for an idea of what is encyclopedic or not. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a "clear joke"; that's part of the point. None of the other policies you name, but offer no explanation of how they allegedly support removal, appears to have application here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't see it for the joke it was, then you clearly did not even listen to the original presentation. All of the policies I stated are reason for removal, you have yet to explain why it is notable for inclusion. Additionally, this is a clear news spike story without any lasting value. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment is non-responsive and does not merit its own response. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely with Arzel. Primarily, this is a WP:BLP violation. It adds nothing whatsoever to a biographical understanding of her and adding it without context like this just fuels the simplistic narrative pushed by some that she's crazy or out of touch. It was just a single comment made at a campaign stop (whether she was joking or not doesn't matter). Get ready for it, it's campaign season. She's going to be making remarks that get repeated by someone on an almost daily basis now. We're not going to rush to add all of them to her biography. Let's set the bar high, here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a BLP violation in any way, shape, or form. BLP policy has no "exclude embarassing comments by subject" provision. The objection that "we can't include every comment" holds no water. As indicated, this one is special. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation when the goal is to try and demean a living person by including everything they said in a way to make them look bad. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(A) No it's not; (B) that's not my goal and you really ought to AGF. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume good faith until that point when it is clear that there is no reason to make that assumption. You have reached that point. Arzel (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I had thought that AGF policy was a little more robust than that. If not, then I will stop assuming good faith on your part, as well, and revert to my baseline assumption that you're a Bachmann campaign volunteer who has taken it upon himself to perform damage control, when Bachman says/does outrageous or deeply troubling things, by dishonestly Wikilawyering in an attempt to improperly introduce bias to the article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can assume that you work for the Obama camp them and will try to trash any and all republicans. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If I worked for Obama, why would I bother "trashing" Bachmann—instead of someone that has a shot of winning the election? ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Does that mean that every joke that some people don't like should be included in the BLP of the person that made it? Obama made a joke about disabled people which was in increadibly poor taste. When those that wish to include this joke here are also clamoring to include it in his BLP then you would have something to talk about. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're here because you don't like the way the article on Barack Hussein Obama is written, you are in the wrong place. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I mention it here because the same kind of crap was discussed there and deemed not notable for inclusion. You have yet to show why it is notable for inclusion here, you have not. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's notable because it's a high-profile comment by a high-profile candidate for POTUS on a subject that has been given a very high profile by both the public and the mainstream media. But I've already said essentially this and thus have already stated the reasons for inclusion. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but name policies that don't support your desire to exclude this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's not being included "just because it got covered". It's being included because of the special significance of the comment in light of Bachmann's extensively self-publicized religious views. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OR to me. WP is not a place to build your personal research paper on a person. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not OR if it's a mainstream newspaper columnist making the connection. "Original research" refers to original synthesis and research by a Wikipedia editor. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• An aside to note that, despite it's frequent misinterpretation, WP:NOTNEWS is just a notability standard, not a content guideline. It helps us determine which events to write articles about, not what to include in already created articles. It has nothing to do with this discussion.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)

I haven't thought about this subject independently, but it seems to me that language supports Will's position, not yours. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not determine article content. They simply provide guidance on whether there should be an article or not. No one is proposing making an article about this statement.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Take a look at the comment, quoted above, from the WaPo. Bachmann's own self-promotion regarding her religious outlook is what gives this comment, and reactions to it, special significance. I'll take your cue in not giving it its own section, though. It should probably go under "religious views". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general principle, most noteworthy statements made by the subject while campaigning for president should probably go in the campaign article.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with your general principle. This issue, however, fails to even reach a long term notable statement regarding her campaign. It had a short news blip which quickly died as the obvious nature of her trying to make a joke became clear. Arzel (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You have an odd notion of what constitutes a "blip". Ten pages of Google news results have appeared in the four days since she made this comment. There hasn't even been time for the issue to "quickly die", and it appears that it has not "quickly died". Nor is it entirely clear that she was joking, although it is clear that this is the message she now wants to send. In any event, I'm puzzled by your insistence that if this was a joke, it is not worthy of mention; making light of natural disasters that killed dozens of people, in order to score some political points by turning it into a soundbite/talking point about her views on government spending, seems to reflect a ghastly indifference to the people that actually suffered.

So while I don't see how you can claim that this statement will not have any long-term notability when the ink is barely dry on the initial news stories, if you ask me, people will remember this for a very long time. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The joke was made before the hurricane hit. But I am not suprised that MSNBC would try to make an issue of it. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What possesses you to make such absurd comments unhinged from reality? The campaign stop was at 4PM on Saturday, August 27th, by which time the hurricane had already swept through the Carolinas and was about to hit Virginia, followed within hours by Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. So, no, it wasn't "before the storm hit" but rather while the storm was hitting, and after significant destruction was complete.

Besides that, it seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that this would have been a reasonable comment if it had been made before the destruction occurred — perhaps in that scenario Bachman would merely have been unexpectedly and unfortunately caught off guard by the fact that a hurricane actually caused damage and casualties when it swept through the most densely populated part of the country? Jeez. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the coverage of this, it seems like the media considers it to have been a significant issue. I think it should be added, briefly, to the campaign article.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a suggestion I made higher up in the article. I can see this having an impact on her campaign, but her biography? Anything that could be said will violate BLP principles. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't understand the remark, "anything that could be said will violate BLP principles". Why? She said it; it has been reported (it's verifiable) and can certainly be written in a way that doesn't constitute original research. I'm not arguing that it should be included, but I don't agree that it, by its very nature, will always violate BLP principles. I think anyone with string feelings about Bachmann (one way or the other) should probably go and read WP:COI and find other articles to contribute to - articles with subjects they are less emtionally involved with. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that this issue isn't relevant to her biography, and that any attempt to enter it will involve WP:OR as it tries to make a connection to her biography, which will also violate WP:NPOV, at least as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Er... maybe I'm missing something about policy here, but it would seem the campaign article is just a sub-page of the BLP, and exists only for reasons of maintaining acceptable article size. If it weren't fit for inclusion in the BLP, it wouldn't be fit for inclusion in the sub-article, either. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Consistency edit to the Social Issues section

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

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