Talk:Michele Bachmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michele Bachmann is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, public relations manipulation, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. More information: Highly controversial view-holding Member of Congress-elect (110th Congress)
Use only on talk pages, in conjunction with {{WPBiography|living=yes}} or {{blp}}.

Clearly NPOV, needs fixing regarding her political stances Quantumstream 23:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


I concurr with quantumstream. Still needs fixing.

Like what stance? They are all pretty well established, even if some of them still need specific references.

Her political stances are established albeit extreme. ~~

This article may seem bias, but if you were to read any and all articles regarding her stance and what she actually does/has done, it's pretty accurate.

Contents

[edit] LRT claims

Her LRT claims are common knowledge, because she used to go on talk radio constantly and talk it up. Her exact quotes are hidden behind pay newspaper articles at this point, except for the referenced paraphrasing. Why are you people so afraid of her stated opinions on light rail?

As far as the POV nonsense

  • it is a matter of record, not POV, that LRT has been successful in the Twin Cities.
  • it is a matter of relevant fact that Bachmann is raising most her money outside the 6th district

Again, why is there an effort to suppress this factual information?

The reference to the Daily Planet article is not a reliable source. The author is an editor on dumpbachmann, and the publication itself is suspect as a source (it bills itself as more of a community forum than a newspaper).
"Successful" is subjective in this case. Considered successful by whom? Are you saying that it's a universally agreed-upon fact that the light rail line is a success? Such a statement requires a source.
As for Bachmann's stance on LRT, we need a reliable source on this. I searched and could find no quote on LRT from Bachmann. But if you can find a quote from her or an article about her LRT stance, then please reference it. For now, I'm removing it because it is unsupported. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant; all that matters is whether it's verifiable from reliable sources. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

a) The source is reliable. You just don't like the author. b) LRT is universally considered successful in the Twin Cities. If it is not, it should be easy for you to cite a counter example. It would be impossible to prove universality.

a) It is not reliable. The author is an active editor on the dumpbachmann blog, and it's basically an opinion piece he wrote and published in an online newspaper that describes itself as "an experiment in participatory journalism". Not exactly the New York Times here. And my past disputes with this author are irrelevant to the question of reliability of the source - and this author is unquestionably a staunch political opponent of Bachmann. We wouldn't reference Karl Rove in an article about Hillary Clinton, and we shouldn't reference this dumpbachmann contributor in an article about Bachmann.
b) "Successful" is an inherently subjective and ambiguous term. What are the criteria for success? Who considers it a success? By what standard? I'm not disputing that you and many others in Minneapolis consider it a success, but that doesn't make it an objective, verifiable truth. It's a POV, plain and simple.
I'm not going to revert, because I don't want to get into a war here. But I stand by my edits. A Transportation Enthusiast 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at two areas of debate at the moment:

  1. Whether the success of Twin-Cities light rail should be in the article
  2. Whether PRT is unproven or experimental

On case 1, Twin-Cities light rail may or may not be successful, but it is certainly not obvious or a U.S. senator would not be saying it is unsuccessful. So a citation is needed, from an independent source. We can have points of view (POVs), but if they are disputed, a reputable source must be found. The onus is on the person wanting to add the POV to find a reliable source. For this reason I have taken out this word, though a [citation needed] tag could be used instead, in which case if a cite is not found, the word will probably be removed anyway. A source would also clarify what success actually means in this case too - this is not obvious to a new reader of the article. Stephen B Streater 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On case 2, PRT is commercially unproven as the in-practice costs and usage figures are not known, but experiments have shown it is technically possible. Several systems are being made commercially, and when these are up and running, both these terms (unproven and experimental) will need review. Stephen B Streater 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


1. No US Senator or anyone else is claiming it is not successful. The success is not disputed. Her opposition and criticisms were prior to the advent of light rail.

The onus is on you to find a cite as it is a subjective view. Wikipedia prefers verifiability to truth. Stephen B Streater 13:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've re-worded the paragraph so that it is more clear that she preferred PRT to LRT prior to construction; the previous version did not make this clear. I've also retained the "success" line now that we have a reliable source, and removed the reference to the op-ed piece written by a political foe. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - this section looks much better supported now. Stephen B Streater 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRT

I think it is relevant to her as a politician that she is pushing something that is highly speculative in its viability. I honestly don't know enough to personally have a position on PRT, but I do question the judgment of someone who would push it as an alternative to LRT for specifically the kind of problem the Twin Cities were trying to solve.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xinconnu (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 September 2006.

The point is, you are making a judgement on PRT and extrapolating it out to a judgement on Bachmann. I agree with Captainktainer on this: let the user make the judgement. ATren 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not the point. PRT is objectively unproven. I am making no judgments whatsoever on PRT itself. It is unproven. And the fact that she would pursue an unproven technology is relevant, but in itself is neither positive nor negative. Xinconnu 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I could go either way on this. I just feel that by including the fact that it is commercially unproven (certainly not technologically unproven - much research and several fully-functioning prototypes have demonstrated technological feasibility), it sounds like we're trying to make a point rather than state a point. She supports PRT over LRT, that's her position - to say more sounds like campaigning to me. Let the reader decide. ATren 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that her judgement is impaired. In fact, I place her squarely on the "a few bats short" segment of the belfry metric. She doesn't deserve to be in a position of power for a whole host of reasons. Nevertheless, this isn't an article about PRT. It's an article about Michelle Bachmann. Wikipedians, on the whole, are smart, or at least we should assume they are. Assuming that PRT is truly a whacko idea, reading the PRT article will let them figure it out for themselves. In the meantime, we don't need to comment on its impracticality. What could really use work is the PRT article. It is painfully pro-PRT, blatantly violating NPOV standards. Captainktainer * Talk 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Painfully pro-PRT? Nonsense. That article was battled over for 6 months until a general consensus was reached. User:JzG was very much a skeptical force in that debate, as was User:Stephen B Streater, and they seem OK with the article now. There's no basis for your pro-PRT assertion.
Captainktainer is referring to the article on PRT
Yes, I know, that's what I was referring to too. Take a look at the PRT history and you'll see how familiar I am with that article. :-) ATren 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are otherwise reasonable people so rabidly against reporting details about this technology? The article states facts that are scientifically indisputable and well supported in reliable sources (books, journals, even prototypes). The article also clearly (and repeatedly) states the concerns about commercial application. What's the problem? You'd think we were talking about intelligent design here, not a thoroughly-developed, well-understood, scientifically sound transportation concept. ATren 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Statement: "Some of Bachmann's local critics charge that she could be more accurately described as a Christian fundamentalist political candidate."

To the person or persons who keep removing or changing the following sentence from Senator Bachmann’s Wikipedia entry: “Some of Bachmann's local critics charge that she could be more accurately described as a Christian fundamentalist political candidate.”

As of today, September 15th, 2006, you have removed or amended this statement several times. Whenever you removed it entirely from the article, I replaced it.

I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise statement, but the statement you have substituted is actually less accurate than the original. Local critics of Bachmann have not charged “that she is a candidate more aligned with Christian fundamentalist ideology.” Local critics have indeed charged that she is a “Christian fundamentalist” politician—a politician pursuing a Christian fundamentalist agenda.

For the definition of Christian fundamentalist, see the Wikipedia entry on that topic and note the section of the entry entitled “Christian Right (USA)”. (It happens that this entry on Christian fundamentalism references Dr. James Dobson’s Family Research Council. Senator Bachmann is acquainted with Dr. Dobson and until recently a photograph of the Senator with Dr. Dobson was posted on her website. The Senator notes that Focus on the Family, Dobson’s popular radio broadcast organization, provided her with the materials for her public presentation on “The Effects of Gay Marriage On Education.”)

This charge--that she is actually a Christian fundamentalist politician--is so well known to people following Bachmann’s career in Stillwater that I did not feel that it needed citation. The links between Senator Bachmann and Christian fundamentalist political movement are well documented in the Wiki entry. Nevertheless, when you began removing the statement, I added citations to show that the original statement is true. The citations provided show that local critics have indeed claimed that Senator Bachmann is a Christian fundamentalist politic candidate and politician.

If you present convincing evidence for the following proposition: “Local critics have NOT charged that Senator Bachmann is not a Christian fundamentalist politician”-- I will agree to remove or change the statement. Until such evidence is presented here on the Talk page, I will keep putting the original statement back in the entry, where it belongs. Please do not “scrub” this entry to remove or amend this statement because you disagree with it. The original statement is accurate and a fair representation of what some local critics claim about Bachmann; the underlying facts are documented and sourced.

Wait, I thought you liberal Christ-haters were telling us that President Bush was just USING Christians to get votes. Now you're insisting...fighting about it in fact, that Christians are actually being encouraged to run for office and spread their ideology.

Which is it, liberals?

[edit] Who Says That the Hiawatha LRT is Unsuccessful?

To find out, read this blog article and the comments[1]Avidor 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That link is to his own anti-Bachmann blog, where he insinuates that "PRTistas" (his name for anyone who mentions PRT) are calling Hiawatha unsuccessful, even though the editor who made that edit (Sparbass) is new here and has never edited the PRT article. In fact, Sparbass changed his edit to "success" here, which leads me to believe that Sparbass might be a strawman sock puppet created by @vidor to trigger this fake controversy. (I don't use @vidor's real name here because he has objected to his name being used on Wikipedia, because he was a "retired" user then. So I don't spell out his full name on Wikipedia). ATren 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't play tennis for Saint Scholastica and I don't contribute to the Republican Party. I am not related to anyone who lives in North Oaks and donates money to Republicans. I am not related to anyone who works on Mark Kennedy's campaign. Does that answer your question? If you have any complaints, ATE/A-Tren, why don't you bring them up with an administrator?.... oh, I forgot... you don't get along with administrators... here's a good example: [2]Avidor 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And if Sparbass is a Hiawatha-hating "PRTista", then why did he later make this edit supporting your view? You're the one who started this with your inflammatory blog entry blaming the edits on "wacky PRTistas". Next time, maybe you should think twice about making exaggerated and unsubstantiated accusations on your blog. When you pull a stunt like that, your motives and tactics will be questioned, especially given that you have a long history of deceptive sock puppetry outside of Wikipedia, and you have even stated publicly that such behavior is no big deal.
But I am not going to get into another irrelevant talk page war with you. The article as it stands states verifiable fact without POV. I consider the matter closed.

I totally have no clue what the above stuff relates to. The fact is, Hiawatha is wildly successful and I have never seen a critique of it other than Bachmann's stupid claim that half the riders are freeloading. Having said that, the only specific quote I found on the net is one that specifically states "early success". In reality "early success" is successful, since it has only been in place a couple of years. Xinconnu 23:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Two sources:[3] [4] If that's not good enough, you can call up the Met Council or Hennepin County and ask them .Avidor 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually said I knew of no one anywhere who thinks it is not a wild success. Xinconnu 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Eligibility to Practice Law in Minnesota

I deleted the part about her no longer being eligible to practice law in Minnesota. Although in absolute sense this is true, I feel it is irrelevant, and it's inclusion in this entry was biased. It implies, or at least raises the possibility that she was disbarred. Although I do not know why she is no longer eligible to practice law in Minnesota, she was not disbarred: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/list.html. Most likely she just stopped paying her annual fee to the Minnesota bar after she stopped practicing law. This is trivial and shouldn't be in the article.

[edit] Quotes

The quotes section has gotten incredibly long. While it's amusing to see a borderline looney bin (in my personal opinion) hang herself by her own words, Wikipedia is not a quote repository. That's what Wikiquote is for, and apparently they're not a fan of her quotes, either. I'm of the opinion that the quotes section should be scrapped. Thoughts? Captainktainer * Talk 05:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they are good evidence of positions that would otherwise come across as lacking an NPOV Xinconnu 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention, there are smart quotes all over the place. Gross. --Marumari 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice SMEAR Job Wikipedia

The inmates truly ARE running the asylum here. You know you're in troble when a bona fide Christ hater like Captainktainer is the one telling you guys to cool it on the quotes.

Bachmann's Wikipedia article is a smear, hate and slime HIT piece.

Yet her liberal opponent's wikpideia article is essentially a hagiography.

No wonder they're starting a 'new' wikiepdia, huh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.141.76 (talk • contribs).

It's funny when the article is called a "smear article" when it mostly consisted of her own quotes. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it amusing that the anon would tar me with the label of "Christ hater," especially given the fact that I am... you know... a Christian. To be honest, I think Ms. Bachmann does an excellent job of hanging herself with her own rope. But really... the quote section longer than the entire freaking article is incredibly excessive. Captainktainer * Talk 04:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of material

TDC, what about the removed material does not meet WP:BLP? The three main points are: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research. Thanks -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I read some more and I agree with some of the removal but not others. I believe all of the items in her 1st platform section list should stay though, as they are well supported factual points. I think the section on her evolution quotes should be removed and possibly her sentence on "supporting intellegent design" should be expanded as she seems to go beyond supporting it to opposing evolution. I also think that we should include more information in the 2006 congressional election section that was left. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blogs, for one are most certainly do not qualify as WP:RS or WP:V. The incidental information on William Hawks is POV as it has little to do with the subject aside to smear her. Also specific examples of who gave what to Bachmann is a violation of WP:NOR, unless the issue has also been raised by someone noteworthy. The attempt to smear Bachmann by linking her to James Dobson and expanding on that is also POV and a violation of WP:NOR, unless this too has been raised by someone of note.

One of the most serious issues is that the links provided do not support the material they are supposed to reference. For example, the sentence about Bachmann supporting privatizing social security along the lines of the CATO institute, is aboslutley positively not supported by the attached links.

I think the former version of the article is almost too far gone to improve upon. If this material is to be added, it needs to be done slowly with the above points taken into consideration. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, though the POV on your userpage doesn't inspire confidence. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Come on, thats not fair, I have a tag right on the top. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it is, it's my opinion. You show a right slant and you are editing conservative pages, don't you think thats a conflict of interest? I'm not going to complain but I am definitely going to double check your edits to this page. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Its a joke, settle down. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one thing--the sentence about Bachmann supporting privatizing social security along the lines of the CATO institute, IS absolutely supported by the attached link. It's from a Minneapolis Star Tribune news story, if you follow the link. It's footnote 7, in the fourth paragraph of the story. If you don't bother to read the documentation, where the hell do you get off editing this page?

And which blog documentation are you criticizing? The ones I checked are reprints of articles that were run in local newspapers that covered Bachmann in her home district, the articles have now been reprinted on blogs. What's wrong with that?

And what's wrong with printing documented facts about where a candidate gets her money from? How is that a "smear"?

Liquidation of documented facts from this article by someone who's p.o.'d about the reality of those facts is not acceptable. It's just scrubbing. There's no problem with someone editing the page to put in documented and positive info about Bachmann's record and platform; it's amazing to me that no one has ever so much as bothered to attempt that. But it's ridiculous to label this a "smear" when every single bit of it is documented--most of the sources are originally drawn from articles published in local newspapers, and the quotes are from Bachmann herself. The names, dates and sources are given. The idea here is to present truthful information about who this public figure/politician is. If you can't give specific reasons for removing each item you removed--it's just cheap vandalism. RaveDave, please tell me how to go about complaining, so if he tries scrubbing the page again we can get someone to referee this.--Bill Prendergast

1 - get a username (it gives some more credibility in the eyes of many). 2 - keep doing what you are doing, discuss on the talk page. 3 - read WP:BLP. 4 - strive for WP:NPOV. 5 - comprimize, lets work together to figure out what material is valid for the page. I personally believe some of the info you posted should stay and some should go. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. TDC, what's with the removal of all of the Minnesota Public Radio links? Public radio is a reliable source. Captainktainer * Talk 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
NPR is a reliable link, but like so much of what the anon editor continues to put in the article, what is in the link does not square up with what is in the link. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine, RaveDave, let's compromise. If anything is inaccurate or violates the Wiki policy, I want it out too.

First of all--"Torturous Cudgel"--I am not an "anonymous" editor. That's my real name, Bill Prendergast. I'm resident of Stillwater Minnesota (the district that Michele Bachmann currently represents, and part of the district she will represent in Congress if she is elected.) For more than two years I wrote articles on Bachmann and other local political topics for the Stillwater Gazette, our local daily paper. I registered and obtained a username this morning, when I found out that documented facts on Bachmann were being liquidated from the page. The username is BillPrendergast. If you are sincere in charging that the links don't square up with "what is in the link" (the footnote), I suggest that we go through the text of article line by line. I notice that you now concede that Bachmann backs privatization of SS (though you removed the fact that she advocates privatization along lines suggested by the Cato Institute, which appears in the source material you previously ignored.) I am going to repost the data, and I suggest that in the spirit of accuracy and fairness you do not remove it wholesale until you have written in here to discuss your exact reason for removing each line. The material is well-documented and its accuracy has been researched, your "shotgun" rationale of removing it wholesale because it is a "smear" is unjustified and may constitute vandalism. RaveDave--after examining the reposted material, I hope you will tell me which specific material you would remove, and why. As I have pointed out--there is nothing that prevents any user from posting counter-factual statements to this article. What I object to is TDC removing documented facts without providing any specific explanation for why he is doing so. This morning I contacted a Wiki advocate to advise me in this matter; I hope we can resolve the dispute here, through mutual discussion.--BillPrendergast

Bill - just to clarify a few points: an "anonymous editor" on Wikipedia is defined as someone not logged in as a username. The username itself does not necessarily reveal your true identity, but this is distinct from the notion of "anonymous editing". Now that you've created a username, you should always be sure to login before editing so your Wikipedia username is preserved in the edit histories - otherwise only your IP address appears in the histories. You should also sign all talk page comments with ~~~~ which will expand to your full username and datestamp. This convention makes it easier to follow talk page threads. Also, one final piece of advice: be patient and keep a cool head. Wikipedia has a wealth of policies and guidelines that may not be apparent to a new user, and what seems arbitrary to you might have a good reason behind it. It seems that Ravedave is willing and able to serve as mediator in this issue between you and TDC, so I suggest you trust in Ravedave's judgement in these matters. No article is on a deadline, so take your time, listen to your advocates, and eventually you will arrive at a solution acceptable to all. ATren 19:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no dog in this fight, I stumbled on this article several months ago a did a quick cleanup, I have no interest in the article or the subject. Bill has an aggressively negative attitude towards the subject, and is in violation of WP:BLP. There is nothing for Ravedave to mediate here, as I have no further interest in editing the article, only correcting violations. Someone has to. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a fight. :-) I really don't have an interest in Bachmann either, except that some anti-PRT sentiment has occasionally seeped into this article due to Bachmann's support of PRT. So I have it on my watchlist. I think there's a general sentiment that the quotes section had gotten too large, and there are a lot of edits by anti-Bachmann bloggers, so some oversight is definitely warranted. But if you don't want to be involved (I don't either, really, except when PRT is brought up) I think Ravedave and others can handle any issues. ATren 20:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Also the quotes should go into Wikiquote, thats what it is for. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Bill, you would also do good to read what What Wikipedia is not, namely one of your blogs. You need to justify the addition of material that has shown itself to not abide by the editing guidelines of Wikipedia. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Bill , you appear to not be logged in when posting your items, I am seeing edits from: User:69.180.191.119. A line by line analysis is probably the best way to go. As both of obviously have strong points of view I will try and be the mediator. Wikipedia should be accurate, so material should be decided on here then added, rather than added then removed. TDC would you like to list out various sentences/paragraphs that you believe are unsupported or don't meet WP:BLP? Or would you prefer Bill does so 1st?-Ravedave (help name my baby) 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Putting things back

Bill - It might be helpful to post the top THREE things you think should go back into the article HERE, and get some feedback. Otherwise there could be a lot of frustration - there seems to be some concern [5] at a higher level, which means that attempts by you to reinsert large chunks of text are probably going to be reverted on sight.

You've done a LOT of work, obviously, on the article. Some of it really is too granular (detailed) - all the quotes, and all the information on campaign contributors, for example (not to mention speculation as to membership in a high-level conservative organization). You'll not find that level of detail (or speculation) in other articles on other candidates, and it does unbalance the article. Other stuff, arguably, does belong. It would be good to talk here, first, starting with a few items; if no one objects within 24 hours, then when you re-insert it, it will be likely to stick. John Broughton | Talk 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John and RaveDave and TDC--
I will do as you suggest, and begin by reposting the material here, a few items at a time. I will read the materials that all three of you have suggested to me, and begin reposting the materials, a few lines at a time--in this space, starting tonight.

I'm away from my home computer now. Thank you for the time that you are all giving to this--as you can tell, I am new to this and I am trying to do the best I can with presentation of factual. It was never my intention to use this article as "one of my blogs"--that's why I limited materials I contributed to this article here to what I can prove with documentary evidence. I am more than willing to remove material that doesn't stand up to fact-checking or violates Wiki style guidelines. Suggestions for rephrasing are welcome.--BillPrendergast 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

--BillPrendergast 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I'm signed in, but the signature with timestamp button didn't work. User:Bill Prendergast 7:56pm, 2006
John, RaveDave,TDC--
First--if you want me to post "three things" that should go back in the article-- in what format do you want to see them in this "Editing" space? Do you want to see the raw code for the text and footnotes? Do you just want the text, so that it's easier read? If I simply post the text here, how will you check the footnotes/sources?
I'm off to read the Wiki materials you recommended now; please post the answers to my questions here.--BillPrendergast 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Add the wikitext (with brackets etc) please. We can look at the source for the ref addresses. Thanks for taking the time to cooperate on this, hopefully the article will be better because of it. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. TDC went through and removed a significant chunk of stuff that was properly sourced and NPV under some pseudo guise of not fitting Wikipedia standards. I am fine with most quotes going to Wikiquotes except where it is relevant to a specific aspect of Bachmann's life, events, or positions in the election. Most of the positional elements here, however, are well supported, in many cases through multiple sources. Xinconnu 05:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Per John Broughton and BillPrendergast above, please discuss here before adding back the information that was reverted. --Aguerriero (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I read, prior to signing in here again: WP:BLP, What Wikipedia Is Not, WP:RS,WP:V,WP:NOR.

1) First, let’s settle the issue of the quotes. I posted quotes from Bachmann speeches that are available as digital recordings marketed by a group that supports her agenda and candidacy. They are public speeches on policy. Must they all be moved to the Wikipage, or is it permissible to let some of them appear with the main article, as they represent this candidate’s politics and world view? If they must all be removed to the Wikiquotes page, how do I do that? 2) I would like to restore an external link that TDC deleted. This is a link to “The Bachmann Record”, an anti-Bachmann web page that is clearly identified as such. I see no reason why it should not be included as an external link, since we included a link to the Bachmann campaign’s web page, which is clearly a partisan, pro-Bachmann candidacy website. The material on “The Bachmann Record” website by the way, is sourced with primary and secondary materials that are relied on by journalists—FEC disclosure documents, articles from reputable newspapers and news sources, documented quotes from Bachmann herself. Here is the links section as I would have it. Please comment:

--BillPrendergast 05:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1) The problem with the quotes, I believe, was with the density, not the concept. In other words, instead of six quotes about Bachmann's position on teaching evolution (this is a hypothetical; I've not looked at the older version of the article), the article might contain one quote (or two) that illustrates her position, plus some other text that summaries her position (and is factual). Or, to put it differently, what I was suggesting, when I said "three things", was really political postions, actions, or other matters (Bachmann did X, Bachmann opposes Y, etc.). What I was looking for was subjects that got (in your opinion) eliminatedly completely when something should be in the article, or a subject that was trimmed back too far. What I suggest you do is simply post the full text of what you'd like to see on matters X, Y, and Z, below, without worrying that much about exactly how they would fit into the article, or whether they are audio quotes, written quotes, or whatever.
2) My experience with other articles on Representatives and candidates running for the House is that there is an ongoing debate on the issue of opposition websites, but in general they are excluded. Your point - that the candidate's website is cited, and it's hardly objective - is a good one. Personally I'm okay with adding back "The Bachman Record" (clearly identified) to the article, but I'd like to hear the opinion of others. John Broughton | Talk 12:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Blogs are unacceptable to use as citations, please remove them immediately, as well as any passages that are only cited by a blog. Also, the YouTube video is unacceptable; please remove that citation and the passage it supports. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If you can find where the clip on youtube orginally aired that is a perfectly acceptable reference. The youtube link can then be added in that same ref as a conveinience thing. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine - I hope someone can do that. YouTube is at best a questionable copyright, and at worst a blatant copyvio. I don't think we should use a copyvio as a citation. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The strib has an article about bachmann today and mentiones the video and quotes from it. Unfortunatly it is not online. things it mentions: that god colled her to politics, that she says that she isn't moderate and that women should be subservant to thier husbands. I will get exact quotes and a citation for the article shortly -Ravedave (help name my baby) 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok snagged a paper. Star Tribune, October 19, 2006, Page A3 "Videos, Internet recalibrate campaigns", Writers - Kevin Diaz and Rob Hotakainen. Quotes from the article:
  • "She said God also called on her to run for the state Senate and then for Congress"
  • "In an interview on Wednesday Bachmann denied she is a moderate. 'I think thats funny,' she said. "Nobody's ever accused me of being a moderate...I'm an unabashed conservative.'"
  • "'Tax law? I hate taxes,' She said. 'Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says: 'Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands"

That is a valid source. If someone could pickup the paper and verify the quotes it would be appreciated. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RaveDave-- I have the October 19th Star Tribune article here in my hand, page A3. The quotes you have cited above appear in the article you have cited.--BillPrendergast 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
When will you restore the external link to the Bachmann record, since you say you have no problem with that, and no one has objected?--BillPrendergast 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead and put it back in? John Broughton | Talk 01:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

First, I hope it's clear that no one involved in this (constructive, really) discussion wants to remove relevant information. Bachmann's political positions clearly are based on her religious beliefs; that's important, for example.

Second, the detailed list of contributors is clearly unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a list. And if 300 people and organizations contribute to a campaign, it's often possible to go through and find a dozen or so who are controversial in some way. That really doesn't prove anything; more importantly, it's a distraction. The people contributed because (a) Bachmann's a Republican (not noteworthy) or (b) Bachmann has views that they support (and since the views are notable, that's what should be discussed). I've edited dozens of articles on candidates and incumbent Representatives; I've never seen the level of detail that this article had (and can only remember one or other articles where there was ANY detail whatsoever).

Third, having revised the article, I note that there seem to be large gaps: what did Bachmann do before getting into the legislature? What does her husband (primary wageearner?) do? Where is her BA/BS from? Did she ever use her law degree? How is the campaign going in terms of overall fundraising (versus her opponent)? Have outside organizations (RNCC, DCCC, MoveOn, etc.) spent money in the district? Newspaper endorsements? Was the incumbent she defeated in her first re-election in 2002 a Democrat or a Republican (and if Republican, who did she defeat in the general election? Who did she defeat, and with what % of the vote, in 2004? John Broughton | Talk 13:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your 3rd paragraph there is a fairly decent article (which is an anomoly from the particular publication) about Bachmann that answers that. The Chosen One from the City Pages Personally, I know from personal experience dealing with some of her more ardent supporters that any text from the article itself will be edited mercilessly and I do not feel like entering that battle on Wikipedia. After the election perhaps I will add to Wikipedia some information from the City Pages story.--Tony 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
John Broughton-- I answered as many of your questions about her pre-Senate days as I could and posted the answer to the previous section of this discussion, "Putting Things Back" above, with print citations/sources.--BillPrendergast 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[Note: the following was moved from the section above, to provide a better flow. - JB ]
John-- Here are the answers to the questions you asked about her pre Senate life
John— Here are answers to your questions.
what did Bachmann do before getting into the legislature?
Michele Amble graduated from Anoka High School in 1974. She enrolled in Winona State College (now Winona State University.) There she met her future husband, Marcus Bachmann. They began dating while working on Jimmy Carter’s campaign.
The couple married in 1978 and moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma where Michele enrolled at the Bible-based Coburn law school, an affiliate of Oral Roberts University.
A few years later Bachmann got a position as a U.S. Treasury Department attorney in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Cite for all of the above--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005
Bachmann claimed that she was a tax litigation attorney. Opponents could find no evidence that she had practiced law, and Bachmann attempted to set the record straight by claiming that she worked in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, representing the IRS against people who underpaid or didn't pay their taxes. She did this from 1988 to 1993. Cite: G.R. Anderson, “Somebody Say ‘Oh Lord!’”, The City Pages, February 23, 2005.
Bachmann eventually quit this job to become a full-time mother to their children. The Bachmanns took in 23 foster girls over the years.
Cite for all of the above--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005.
In 1999, Bachmann ran as one of a slate of GOP candidates for the Stillwater school board. The Stillwater school board election is normally non-partisan; candidates do not run with party endorsements. She and the other candidates were defeated.
Cite: Norman Draper, “GOP nod fails to help slate of five in Stillwater”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 3, 1999.
In 2000, Bachmann wrested the GOP endorsement from longtime GOP State Senator Gary Laidig. The GOP party establishment and the Senate GOP caucus supported Laidig’s attempt to defeat her in the primary election, but Bachmann triumphed and went on to defeat the DFL nominee Ted Thompson. (DFL stands for Democratic Farm and Labor Party, Minnesota’s Democratic Party.)
Cite--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005.
What does her husband (primary wageearner?) do?
Marcus Bachmann has a doctorate in clinical psychology and owns and operates a Christian counseling center in the St. Croix valley area.
Where is her BA/BS from?
Her undergraduate degree is from Winona State College (now Winona State University.) Cite--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005.
Did she ever use her law degree?
See above.
How is the campaign going in terms of overall fundraising (versus her opponent)?
Don’t know, have to check.
Have outside organizations (RNCC, DCCC, MoveOn, etc.) spent money in the district?
Yes. The RNCC and the DCCC have both spent money in the district. I would have to find a cite for this, though I know for a fact that both committees are sponsoring ads and mailings in the district. Do you really need this cite for the article? I submit to you that it’s an uncontested fact.
Newspaper endorsements?
I don’t have any record of newspaper endorsements for Bachmann.
Was the incumbent she defeated in her first re-election in 2002 a Democrat or a Republican (and if Republican, who did she defeat in the general election?
Her opponent in the first re-election of 2002 was DFL State Senator Jane Krentz. Cite--Kevin Duchschere, “Senator, mother, rising star”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 1, 2005.
Who did she defeat, and with what % of the vote, in 2004?
I don’t have any information about a “2004 election” handy. It’s not in the biographical newspaper pieces I have in my files.
Note to John and RaveDave--
The material submitted --71.216.119.170 00:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)above in answer to your question was posted by User:BillPrendergast. My normal signature does not appear, because I am working from a public library in order to obtain paper copies of the material I am citing.
Note: I replaced the IP address with Bill's username above. Bill, did you try logging into the library computer? It might be worth a try, though if cookies are required it might not work. Just be sure to logout when you're done. :-) ATren 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, ATren--I will try that the next time I am there.--BillPrendergast 02:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've used the above, plus a review of original sources, to add info to the article. A couple of points:

  • Let's try to avoid double posting (here, then to the article) in the future. Way too much work. What I've done, which I hope is not controversial, is to post objective information from City Pages articles, information that is clearly NPOV (I hope that's clear, anyway.) The moral is that a news article that has a strong POV can still be mined for NPOV information for a wikipedia article. And anyone is welcome to do so - I don't own this article, and I don't want to be in the position of appearing to have to approve additions to it.
  • What Bachmann's involvement was with the charter school is less than clear (one article seemed to say, simultaneously, that the state closed it down and that Bachmann and her allies quit when confronted; those two points COULD be consistent but it's not obviously so. I don't think it's that important, frankly, and given the inconsistent information, I chose to leave it out. (I do note the wording of what WAS in the article was POV - and would be even if it exactly quoted the City Pages article, which it didn't.)
  • What is still missing from the article is info on bills that Bachmann authored while in the legislature. I think these can be objectively described (subject matter, result) without getting into POV statements such as whether the bills resulted in (say) the legislature being unable to deal with more important matters.
  • What I didnt' put back, but am willing to discuss is how much space should be given to details about contributors. My opinion (see above) is NONE, but as I said, I don't own the article, so if someone feels strongly elsewise, let's discuss. (If so, please start a separate section; this one is getting a bit long - thanks.) John Broughton | Talk 01:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
John--
  • If I understand you correctly, your suggestion that I don't "double-post" means that you wish me to post the "checked material" directly to the article, as I have done in the past. You and others will then use this space on the Discussion page to evaluate whether that's proper? That's fine with me, if I understand your suggestion correctly.
  • The significance of the charter school incident is political, which is why the City Pages author chose to include it. It is evidence that Bachmann's political views originate in her sectarian religious views. I didn't include the charter school incident in my biographical stuff, but I can see why other contributors might want it in the article--it documents this politician's worldview/policy perspective.
  • the bills she authored while in the legislature. I will track this down, using a newspaper source.
  • the "how much space should be given to details about contributors." I do strongly differ with you about this issue. I think the information about controversial and/or extremist contributors is quite relevant for people who are going to consult this page to see where this candidate is coming from. People should know, for example, that she has accepted more than $50K in contributions from an organization whose stated goal is to eliminate all funding for public schooling. And Bachmann's ties to James Dobson and the national evangelical political movement are not something that she advertises--but these ties and their out-of-state contributions are documented, her connections to Dobson's political activity are long-standing and they go to the core of her political mission.

Since you suggest we avoid double-posting, I will post information drawn from a recent news story from a reputable source and put it in the article. It is not "contributors" information, it is a news item about Dobson's interest and activity in this particular congressional race.

  • I know the article does not "belong" to you or anyone, but thank you for your interest and time in this matter. The article is already much better than the proto-snippet that resulted from TDC's editing. The goal, in my view, is to make the information accurate and valuable to the voters--and to do that, we must include references to and for Bachmann's documented extremist positions.

[edit] Wikiquote

Bachmanns page at wikiquote should probably be filled in, any takers? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For ease of scrolling, eyestrain purposes, I removed the Bachmann quotes I had posted to this part of the Discussion page. I created a Bachmann quotes page at wikiquote under her name, and posted the quotes there.--BillPrendergast 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should and should not be in this article (take 2)

I just deleted material about (a) Bachmann's husband; (b) What Bachmann's (gay) step-sister said to her; and (c) Who James Dobson is and why he is supporting Bachmann. This article is about Bachmann.

There is plenty of information missing from this article about Bachmann's unusual views and actions. The paragraph on evolution and intelligent design, in the article, is a good example of how to do this: describe her position (paraphrasing what is in a newspaper article, being neutral); cite a bill she proposed; include what she said (briefly). The section on the Minnesota State legislature, for example, is much too brief; surely she did some interesting things there.

And yes, her views were included in prior versions of this article, but in a long list of quotes (if memory serves). What is needed is a more encylopedic (story-telling) approach. John Broughton | Talk 01:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why the information on Dobson and FoF is irrelevant to an article on Bachmann, since Dobson is a longstanding political ally and FoF's significant intervention on her behalf in a local political congressional election is of great interest and importance for people who wish to learn about Bachmann's political perspective prior to election day. In my opinion, omitting the fact that FoF is electioneering for Bachmann is analogous to omitting the fact that the GOP endorses her candidacy.

But though I feel that FoF's intevention in the current congressional race is indeed "about Bachmann",I will not repost it unless you agree that it is significant to understanding this candidate's politics.

Here is another problem. Per your recommendation, I have obtained a laundry list of votes that Bachmann cast in the state legislature. I am loathe to post it without putting it here first, since the list of votes is extensive and I know that "Wikipedia is not a list." The citation for the list is: Lawrence Schumacher, “Bachmann banks on moral issues”, St. Cloud Times, October 19, 2006. (Sources: Minnesota State Senate, Office of the Revisor of Statutes) http://www.stcloudtimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061019/NEWS01/110190054

Key votes taken and bills introduced in the Minnesota Legislature: State bonding bill (2006) — twice voted against. Eminent domain reform (2006) — twice voted in favor. Minnesota Twins sta dium (2006) — twice voted against. Tax increase on businesses with foreign operations (2006) — twice voted against. Minnesota Gophers football stadium (2006) — twice voted against. Alternatives to abortions support (2005) — voted in favor. Removing tobacco tax from final spending bill (2005) — voted in favor. Final spending bill with tobacco tax (2005) — voted once against, once in favor. Meth/sex offenders crime bill (2005) — voted in favor. Bringing gay marriage amendment to floor vote (2005) — voted in favor. Transportation bill with gas tax increase (2005) — voted against. Handgun permit to carry bill (2005) — voted in favor. Minimum wage increase (2005) — voted against. Upper bracket income tax increase (2005) — voted against. Introduced American Heritage in Minnesota Public Schools Act (2002-2006) — Died in committee. Introduced constitutional marriage amendment (2004-2006) — Died in committee. Introduced Academic Bill of Rights (2006) — Died in committee. Introduced bill repealing state alternative minimum tax (2006) — Died in committee. Introduced Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights constitutional amendment (2003) — Died in committee. Introduced bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote (2001) — Died in committee. Introduced constitutional amendment restricting state funds for abortion — Died in committee. --BillPrendergast 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In general, votes should be mentioned only in context of a larger discussion, or as filler if there isn't anything else. Even then, it's better to do grouping, like (social conservative label, voted against increasing minimum wage). (And this is done in the article.)
The seven bills that she introduced, on the other hand, ARE worth mentioning in the article (or, at least, what you think are the most important/illustrative ones). You're right about lists not being welcome, at least long ones, so a seven-bullet paragraph is NOT the way to go. Rather, what you want is in context of her positions, for example, or bundled with a quotation. Something like this:
"Bachmann is in favor of X. In April 2000 she said "I really believe in X because God told me so ..." . In May 2002 she introduced Bill 1234, "The Bill about X", which called for the state of Minnesota to do X1, X2, and X3. The bill died in committee. Bachmann said afterwards that "X wasn't given fair consideration / passed / treated fairly because ...."
What you don't want to include in such a paragraph are things like "Critics said the X bill was stupid" or "Doing X would actually cause more harm then good, according to Expert C." These are argumentive, and inevitably POV accusations will arise, because, well, how do you know the critic you quoted is typical, and what about Expert F who disagrees with Expert C. So, don't go there. Trust the reader - let him/her follow the links and make up his/her own mind.
Having said all that, what was added to the article looks pretty good to me - several of the bills are included already. I just tweaked it a bit; I hope what was trying to be accomplished comes through. John Broughton | Talk 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
John--thank you for the "template" explaining how to "treat" the information about the "seven bills she introduced." I will try to use it as a model for a discussion of her bills. One problem I foresee is that I don't (in each case) have sourced material handy to "flesh out" the reasons why she introduced some of these intiatives. But I do have some stuff, and I will include that information with the "bills introduced", posting each item to the article as it becomes available. I will exclude "argumentative stuff" per your suggestion.
I think I am getting what you mean by the encyclopedic/"story-telling" approach; I will try to stick to that in future additions.
--BillPrendergast 22:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but remember that there isn't a prize for getting every single bill to be mentioned in the article. And they can be mentioned as indications of something else (that is, as part of another "story"), rather than each needing a separate paragraph, where they seem important enough for the article. Finally, keep in mind that the goal here is to paint a full, accurate, useful (and interesting) portrait, so think about what's left out. And if you're unsure about whether something belongs in, test the water with one paragraph rather than (say) five, and see what happens. John Broughton | Talk 00:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:BOLD - in other words, don't hesitate to edit the article itself. You don't have to validate everything here, especially now that John has laid out a nice blueprint for future edits. If someone disagrees with your edits, they will revert or modify, and if there is a dispute you can always discuss here. ATren 01:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay ATren, I will read WP:BOLD. I know I don't have to validate everything on the Discussion page first, but when I got to that laundry list of Senate bills I felt the need to stop and ask for advice. My concern at this point is to keep the page accurate and useful, but I am still learning about Wikipedia style and procedures. For example, I still disagree with John B about inclusion of the fact of James Dobson/FoF intense interest in the outcome of this race, and their mobilization of churches to promote her election. What do I do with that fact, if I think it's important information, critical to an understanding of this candidate--but John sincerely disagrees? John took it down, because he thinks the article is about Bachmann; I want to include it, because it is an important fact about Bachmann and her candidacy for Congress. The fact goes off into the ether, if we can't agree on its inclusion? Note: This is respectful disagreement with John's "call", not a criticism of John.--BillPrendergast 05:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On Dobson, I thought we were talking about contributions. Yes, certainly if Dobson is mobilizing churches, that's newsworthy (as part of the campaign section of the article). John Broughton | Talk 12:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Bill: I only referred you to WP:BOLD because it's a natural impulse among some new editors to become too cautious after someone else reverts their edits. Also, I just think WP:BOLD is a really good and concise summary of what Wikipedia wants you to be: bold in making changes, and tolerant of others' bold changes.
Yes, the talk page is exactly where you would discuss stuff like the Dobson issue. In my (admittedly limited) experience, when there is a contentious point or phrase, and assuming both sides of the debate are reasonable, an equitable solution can usually be found by hashing it out on the talk page. In this example, it seems John was not objecting to Dobson per se, but rather the focus on contributions vs. campaigning; so a mention of Dobson in the context of his campaigning activities would likely be acceptable to all. If a point is relevant (and in this case, I agree that it is), then it may be only a matter of how and where to present it. ATren 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improper removals by Aguerriero

I didn't contribute to this Michele Bachmann material. In fact, until tonight, until I came to this article from another Wiki page, I didn't even know who she was. With that said, I think Aguerriero was way off base with criticisms of 69.249.195.232 and removing material that was clearly not defamatory. Simply put, Aguerriero, you're not editing nor administrating. You're censoring, and doing it under the false guise of "defamation" and improperly using administrative powers to do so. You clearly do not understand defamation (I'm an attorney -- I do). The contributor sourced the material from two mainstream sites. You also marked his/her contributions as "vandalism," which it was not. I think your removals need to be reviewed by a neutral third party as you clearly seem to have some vested interest in this subject -- based on other contributions/comments you've made above -- and are making POV removals. You seem to be subjecting material to some sort of personal litmus test to which you expect others to adhere. Very anti-Wiki behavior, IMHO. I think you should completely stop making any edits or changes and turn this over to another administrator. You're obviously not being objective.207.69.139.11 05:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am here to review the removals. Which specific diffs do you object to and on what policy grounds, please? Your accusations are conclusory. As an attorney, you should know better. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's start by not insulting me and by not making ad hominem comments about me. It's inappropriate behavior for an administrator, and your immediate stridency and combativeness toward me makes one question your objectivity. Are you here as a neutral third party or are you here as Aguerriero's advovate in the guise of an administrator? If it's the latter, than your actions are immediately inappropriate. My statements were not conclusory accusations; they were well documented. (And before getting all huffy again, you might also want to read what I just posted in the Village Pump about rude and petty administrators -- it's in the section marked "The (Hopefully Reversible) Decline of Wikipedia."[6])
That notwithstanding, I clearly spelled out what the problem was above. Look at the history of the article. Trace Aguerriero's actions. Look at what he/she did about six hours before I posted this. In a nutshell: apparently not responding to any complaint, Aguerriero threatened to block 69.249.195.232 for editing material which he/she claimed was defamatory. Read his/her comments on 69.249.195.232's user page.[7] As noted, the contributions were double-sourced from mainstream sites and were thus not defamatory. (If material is sourced to a third party it cannot, by its nature, be considered defamation here, as a matter of American tort law, as Wikipedia is not the source of publication. As a 3L, hopefully you've learned that by now.)
As well, Aguerriero marked the removal as a "rv," and the contribution was not vandalism. Aguerriero's tone (like yours) is not neutral and "administrative" -- it's combative and strident. Aguerriero has taken a POV stance on this article's content, then threatens administrative actions against those who edit him/her. If you look at the history of the article, and 69.249.195.232's talk page, you'll see where the problem lies.
There used to be a policy that an administrator could not take administrative actions on pages to which he/she was contributing. Has that rule been discarded? Even if it has, quite simply, if Aguerriero is contributing to the article as an editor, he/she should not take any administrative actions against other users with whom he/she does not agree. It's a blatant conflict of interest. It's this sort of carelessness which weakens Wikipedia 207.69.137.12 06:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Reversion is not an administrative action, and neither is leaving comments/warnings on user talk pages. As far as I understand, Ag did not block/delete/protect anyone or anything, and therefore has not used his administrative powers where he edits. As a disclosure, yes, I am a friend of this user. I will address your substantive accusations tomorrow. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Aguerriero deleted material and incorrectly called it a reversion. And, Aguerriero posted on the user page, and I quote directly, "If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption" (emphasis added). Stating that someone will be blocked is an administrative action. So that's two admin actions right there. Further, given you are a friend of Aguerriero, then you should not be here acting as an administrator. You, of course, could contribute your opinion and comments, but your friendship is a conflict of interest and you should step away from the matter as an administrator. 207.69.137.12 06:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And Scalia is friends with Rumsfeld. When I say "delete", I mean do what lay users can't, delete articles. Anything he removed you can put back in if you gather consensus first. It's all in the history. Same with conduct warnings. He's free to issue them - he just shouldn't block on that basis himself, but rather solicit an uninvolved sysop to do so. What he did could have been done by any lay user. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, 207.69.137.12, thanks for taking time to voice your concerns. To concisely address your major points:

  • I don't have any interest in Michele Bachmann.
  • I don't contribute to this article other than removing inappropriate content, and have never heard of Michele Bachmann until an editor posted to an administrative noticeboard that such edits were being made here.
  • Part of my job as an administrator is to enforce Wikipedia policies. I'm sure that during the course of your research you read the policy on Biographies of living persons, which clearly states that potentially controversial material in articles about living people HAS to be reliably and neutrally sourced. That is non-negotiable.

So, here I am. I fostered discussion on this Talk page and most editors agreed to discuss controversial changes here before adding to the article. However, some people have continued to add controversial material to the article, sourced by blogs and other unreliable pages. I will continue to aggressively remove such additions, pursuant to policy, and I will warn and block people who add it, which is my job. A simple review of the article history shows that I have never contributed to this article, and a simply review of my personal contributions shows what I am interested in editing, and it's not political articles. Have a great day and let me know if you have any further concerns. --Aguerriero (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Along with the inappropriate and embarrassing content that cited blogs that was rightfully removed, content that had apparently reliable sources was also removed. See this edit.

This statement is from citypages.com, which seems to be a newspaper. It lists many reputable newspapers as sister newspapers, like the Village Voice and LA Weekly. In the past, I have heard the term "sister newspapers" used when they are owned by the same parent company. Unfortunately, I was unable to determine their relationship from their websites or through whois. However, the note in the reference says that the author is a senior editor and public affairs columnist, so I think that it is a newspaper, not a blog.

"Some of Bachmann's local critics charge that she could be more accurately described as a Christian fundamentalist political candidate. [1]"

A statement that was referenced by Bachmann's own book was also removed.

After she was elected to the Minnesota State Senate, Bachmann charged that federal laws (such as the School-To-Work law) showed that the United States had a governance structure opposed “to both free enterprise and representative government.” Bachmann claimed that the US government had formally adopted “the failed ideas of a state-planned and managed economy similar to that of the former Soviet Union.” She wrote that the federal government had now “consolidated all local, state and federal policies, programs and funding into a state-managed economic system.” Bachmann also charged that the US was implementing a new national school curriculum that embraced a “socialist, globalist worldview; loyalty to all government and not America.”[2]

Content that was cited to The Pioneer Press, "a Media News Group newspaper and the winner of three Pulitzer Prizes" was also removed.

The Internal Revenue Service opened an investigation into the tax-exempt status of a church, after Bachmann spoke to the congregation about her campaign, and received the endorsement of the pastor. A news story broke out after videos appeared on the video-sharing website Youtube. [3]

Were these removals intentional? If they were, why do you consider them inappropriate? I looked up defamation and according to U.S. law, when the person is a public figure, you have to know that the information is false and publish it anyway. See the Britannica definition. -- Kjkolb 11:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

City Pages is a weekly, printed newspaper. I personally wouldn't quote a writer from the publication if he/she said "Candidate X is (whatever)", because the writers have a lot of freedom in their articles to express personal opinions (as, opposed, say, to the Washington Post, but if the paper quotes someone, or provides factual information (Candidate X attends Church Y), then yes, in my opinion that clearly is acceptable information per WP:RS. The paper has editors and a review process; it can certainly be sued for libel and be put out of business (and it's owned by a corporate group that also has assets).
I suggest that if Aguerriero doesn't get around to replying in, say, 24 hours, and if no one else has valid objections, that you or someone else put the information back in. John Broughton | Talk 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! Yes the removals were intentional, and they were due to a WP:BLP/N complaint. Basically, Factmissionary (talk • contribs) came in, and as their very first edit, added a lot of text to this article. Much of it was completely inappropriate and the rest needed discussion (I still don't think any of those citations are reliable, but the community can decide that). So I decided to revert them and ask that potentially negative things be discussed here before addition (as it has). If the editors here decide that some of subjective cases are permissible (like the citypages blog, or her own book), it certainly should be added back. My only purpose here was to get discussion going and protect the page from violations of WP:BLP. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watch out for those pre-election scrubs

Check that last attempted deletion of an anti-Bachmann link on the "History" page. See what we're dealing with here, guys? I bet you see more attempts at deletion before the election's over. The race is VERY close right now, and there's going to be the usual last minute political panic attacks you see before the end of a close election. Locally, the tone of the election is getting very "high-pitched"--the Star Tribune broke a story about how Bachmann's church is doctrinally committed to teaching that the Roman Catholic papacy is the Anti-Christ. That just came out a few days ago and it hit talk radio today. (Bachmann denied it on television a few days ago.) Thanks to all of you who are watching for last minute "scrubs" of the links and the documented information.--BillPrendergast 02:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is not my blog, but thanks to all administrators who volunteered their time to monitor the integrity of this entry, pre-election.--BillPrendergast 07:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The footnotes to the article have been trashed

I don't know how, but there's a mess of html where the footnotes used to be. Wawaconia, I assume this has something to do with your editing, if I'm wrong I apologize--but could you revert to an earlier version with intelligible footnotes, then re-add your new stuff again without compromising the footnotes? I have an earlier version of the article but I hate to put it that one back up because you have made additions since then.--BillPrendergast 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. If a reference/footnote isn't closed right, it can swallow a lot of things. John Broughton | Talk 01:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John for the fix, I'll make a point of keeping on eye on this in the future.--Wowaconia 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] IMHO--refer to her as "Bachmann" not as "Michele"

I'm taking out the instances where Bachmann is referred to by her first name (it was misspelled as "Michelle") and substituting her last name--Bachmann. The reason I've done this, now and before, is that referring to a politician by their first name is not encyclo pedia style. (eg, I checked the article on Congressman Richard Pombo of California and he is not referred to as "Richard" in the body of the article, Nixon is not referred to as "Dick", etc.) Referring to her by her first name is appropriate for Bachmann's campaign web page, not for an encyclopedia article.


I used her first name as a method to avoid bad writing style. Instead of beginning every sentence with Bachmann or letting the word Bachmann appear close to its last appearance I used the word Michele (admittedly misspelled - thanks for the correction). I would argue that this practice is acceptable by pointing you to the Wiki article on Hillary Clinton where the following lines are taken from...

"As a child, Hillary was involved in many activities at church and at a public school in Park Ridge."
"On October 11, 1975, when Hillary was 27 years old and Bill was 28 years old, the Clintons married in Fayetteville, Arkansas."
"During the Lewinsky scandal, Hillary initially claimed that the allegations against her husband were the result of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'."
"Both Bill's and Hillary's memoirs later revealed that the revelation of the affair was in reality a very painful time in their marriage."
I think if you review my contributions to Michele Bachmann's wiki here that you'll see I'm striving for impartiality.--Wowaconia 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the articles for politicians Diane Feinstein of California, Marylin Musgrave of Colorado, and Nancy Pelosi of California. Throughout the Feinstein article, she's referred to as Feinstein. Throughout the Musgrave article, she's referred to as Musgrave. Throughout the Pelosi article, she's referred to as Pelosi. They don't use first names to refer to these female polticians in the body of the articles. The "style" issue you raise ("Instead of beginning every sentence with Bachmannn or letting the word Bachmann appear close to its last appearance") isn't considered an issue in those articles. I think the reason that Hillary is permissible instead of "Clinton" (in the Wiki article on HC) is that it helps to distinguish her from her equally famous husband; that's not an issue in this article. If you can't justify reason for treating Bachmann differently than Feinstein, Musgrave, and Pelosi, I'll remove the Micheles again and substitute Bachmanns. No offense, I think most of the stuff you're putting in is great; I just can't see the reason for treating Bachmann differently than similary situated politicians.--BillPrendergast 06:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your number of examples is convincing. I will rearrange sentence structures to change any perceived existing style problems and use Bachmann or Michele Bachmann in anything that's not a quotation in future segments.--Wowaconia 07:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just used "Michele" for when she wasn't married. I think this jives with clarifying between her and Marcus Bachmann. I think this is better for the reader than using her maiden name which may be confusing.--Wowaconia 22:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the segment about Profiles of Learning too long?

When I began the segment on her "Opposition to Profile of Learning and School-to-Work Policies" I was unaware that there were wiki articles on both programs. I could reduce this segment and refer the reader to sections of that wiki article. Also the quotes from critics of these programs are from Michele's compatriots but not from her, which I would really like to replace. While I wish to maintain all appearances of objectivity in the article, the only good source I could find that quotes Michele on these topics is dumpbacmann.org. I'll use that source if I can't find anything else, as I'd rather put her own words in here. Still for the sake of maintaining all appearances of objectivity I'd appreciate any help in finding a less controversial source.--Wowaconia 06:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I'm a contributor to Dump Bachmann. I, too, am striving for objectivity in this article. I would be leary of using unsourced quotes from Dump Bachmann--it is a blog, and they frown on using blogs as sources here. On the other hand, I know that a lot of the stuff on Dump Bachmann has links that lead to sources that are acceptable under Wiki standards. If they linked to a Bachmann quote on the the Profile of Learning from a respectable publication or to a Bachmann public address or publication on the subject--I can't see objecting to using that linked source as a source for a footnote.
Is the segment too long? Maybe. The Profile of Learning issue was key in Bachmann's career in her first years in the state house, so it deserves coverage. Its modification is arguably her biggest legislative accomplishment so far. The guideline for what to cover and how much attention to give it that I have been following is the one suggested by John Broughton--"the article is about Bachmann, not about (fill in the blank--the Profile of Learning, Intelligent Design, whatever.) So I'd explain what advocates of the Profile intended it to be, then explain why MB opposed it, and then explain what she did about it--a sentence or two for each explanation.--BillPrendergast 06:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] the Intelligent Design thing

In the section at issue, we were writing about B's 1999 school board campaign. Here's the original version, which I then edited: It is reported that Bachmann also promoted having classes on Intelligent Design. Bachmann denies that she spoke of Creationism in the campaign (the issue remains unclear as many see the theories as independent of one another). Critics also claim that the GOP was funding the campaigns of its endorsed slate for the Stillwater school board, a claim Bachmann denies.[13]

First: The article cited in footnote 13 doesn't provide support for the statement "It is reported that Bachmann also promoted having classes on Intelligent Design." Also, I think we are supposed to avoid "it is reported that" statements in Wiki articles. So I removed that statement, I don't think it should be returned until someone can justify it with a document or record. I hope someone can provide tangible evidence of Bachmann advocating ID on the public school curriculum during the 1999 election; she certainly suggested its inclusion on the curriculum after she was elected to the State Senate.

Second: I am removing the parenthetical "(the issue remains unclear as many see the theories as independent of one another)" There is a political (not scientific) controversy about whether Intelligent Design is science or not. See the Wiki article on Intelligent Design. There isn't any real controversy within the scientific community about ID, because-to my knowledge, and after checking again--there aren't any articles in any respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals that lend credence to the ID theory. Saying that "many see the theories (of Creationism and ID) as independent of one another" constitutes "weasel words." Anyway, it's an article about Bachmann, not about the scientific status of ID.--BillPrendergast 07:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You were right that I had neglected to source these comments. On my first reading of the sources I thought that they indicated a conflict between her story and that of City Pages that could be resolved if one assumed Bachmann drew a distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design as those who supported I.D. in the federal courts had, thus the inclusion of the parenthetical material. Thanks to you pointing out my forgetting to source the material I reread the sources and came to the conclusion that her vocal support of I.D. may well have ended while the school board campaign was ongoing. Therefore I have made a new segment that appears to be the correct reading of all the sources and restores the fair assumption that neither Bachmann nor City Pages and its sources are lying on the issue. I feel this really improves the whole article, thanks again.--Wowaconia 08:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about Pulkrabek's comments?

Does anyone know if Bachmann was ever asked to respond to Repulican party leader Pulkrabek's comments about her wanting the GOP endorsement? This seems like an absolute contradiction with her claim that she was drafted. I find it hard to believe that I'm the first person to catch this. Both the article with Bachmann's claim and the other article with Pulkrabek's comments are from the City Pages - did someone over there ever put the question to her?--Wowaconia 09:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re, Pulkrabek question about "absolute contradiction" in her story. What I am about to say is entirely inappropriate for inclusion in the body of the article, but it is good background for anyone trying to follow this politician's career. When Bachmann is called out on an apparent contradiction or outright lie by a member of the media or a member of the public, her common response is to either 1) pretend that the question has not been asked, and move on to a different subject; or 2) answer with another lie. Nonetheless, the local news media have commonly accepted whatever version of events in her life and career and past statements she is offering at the moment. You may well be the first person to notice that her account of how "she was drafted" contradicts Pulkrabek's version (that she sought endorsement.)--BillPrendergast 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did she pull her kids out of the Charter school after quiting?

Some sources say her children received their education through either charter or home schooling, I've got some sources that say all of her children were homeschooled. So it looks to me that the ones that where in the Charter school were pulled out when she quit and that she never sent any of her biological kids outside the home for primary education after that. Does anyone have any info on this? I'm also kind of puzzled as to why she thought regular public education was not good enough for her bioligical kids but was fine for the foster children placed in her care.--Wowaconia 10:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did she even want the School Board position?

Since Bachmann went to Pulkrabek for the State Senate seat and he told her to run for School Board is there evidence that she desired that position? She kept on going across the state with EdWatch instead of campaigning in Stillwater. Does anyone have any record of how much time or money she put into the School Board run? Does anyone have any record of her saying she was disappointed in not getting the position?--Wowaconia 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a record of the time or money she spent on the School Board run. I don't have a record of her saying that she was disappointed in not getting the position. I have always assumed that the School Board run was a "feeler" candidacy to get her name before the public. Here is why: the first time I heard of MB was when she appeared on local Christian radio as a candidate for School Board. She was promoting her candidacy on station KKMS, a Christian broadcasting station owned by Salem Communications, a national syndicate of Christian radio stations. They run programs on local and national current affairs--political talk radio--as well as "pastoral" programming/evangelical radio ministry programming. I think that the purpose of her appearances on these programs was to raise her political profile locally and identify her to the audience as a "Christian candidate." Is there a way that I could contact you, Wowaconia? I live in Stillwater Minnesota, I assume from your pseudonym that you live somewhere nearby. If you do, and you are interested, I could invite you to lunch and we could discuss Bachmann's career.--BillPrendergast 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should article be split?

Due to wiki-standards about page size I was thinking I could move the information about the conservative groups (EdWatch and Minnesota Family Council) that have supported her to a new page and put a link in this article to there in the segment about her opposition to the Profiles of Learning. Something like "With her outspoken opposition to the Profiles of Learning, Bachmann began associations with local conservative groups seen by many as controversial - See [link to new page would go here]." As these groups have continued to support her and she speaks at their events and has them appear with her at the capital, a link to this new page could appear several times in the rest of the main Michele Bachmann article. As she has worked so closely with these groups her entire political career I believe some mention of them is critical for any understanding of Bachmann and her politics.--Wowaconia 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should take out the information out entirely--for the reasons you gave above; these groups are key factors in MB's philosophy and political rise. Suggestion--you do the link as you suggest but retain capsule descriptions of the groups (one or two sentences a piece) and combine the existing separate sections into one section. I think you are right to be concerned about wiki-standards for page size, because as you continue to document Bachmann's "non-party" political affiliations, you're going to run into other groups that played key roles in promoting her career--one is the Family Research Council (Tony Perkins) and the other is Focus on the Family (James Dobson). The local ally of these two groups, the Minnesota Family Council (Tom Prichard) was also instrumental in helping turn out voters for her massive rallies in favor of an amendment banning gay marriage in Minnesota. If wiki-format is a concern but you're going to err on the side of inclusion, you'll need to save room for mentions of these groups' influence on the page.--BillPrendergast 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Statements:Bachmann believes that God called her to run for Congress and the Minnesota State Senate.

I removed a previous edit stating that Bachmann claimed that God "led" her to seek Congressional office. It is more accurate to use her own terminology: "God called me"

I added her claims that God called her to run for the Minnesota State Senate and for Congress to the appropriate sections. The source for these statements in the article is the testimony of Michele Bachmann on Saturday, October 14, 2006, at Pastor Mac Hammond's Living Word Christian Center, in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Both statements were recorded, broadcast and documented and can still be viewed on YouTube.

Here is the original statement on her belief that God called her to run for the Minnesota State Senate, recorded in that same testimony: “And in the midst of all this, as if we didn't have enough to do, He called me to run for the Minnesota State Senate. I had no idea, and no desire to be in politics. Absolutely none.”

Here is the original statement about how God called her to run for Congress, also from the broadcast videotape: “And in the midst of that calling, God then called me to run for the United States Congress. And I thought, what in the world would that be for. And my husband said "You need to do this." And I wasn't so sure. And we took three days, and we fasted and we prayed. And we said "Lord, is this what you want, are You sure? Is this Your will?"  And after, along about the afternoon of day two, He made that calling sure.”--BillPrendergast 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Bachmann has a history of saying that most of her movements can be attributed to calls from the divine (from political runs to even marrying her husband) I think this article would be best served if these were collected and quoted in their entirety in their very own segment, perhaps titled "Claims of Divine Calling". The quotes about being called to marry her husband despite her own reservations is particularly revealing in my opinion, but the reader might not see that this follows her established pattern if merely reduced to single sentances that read "Bachmann believes God called her to...". Since she attended Oral Roberts affiliated Law school and he (unlike many Christians of other denominations) claims to have two way conversations with Jesus, this could be included as background or comparison to reveal more about Bachmann, her history, her beliefs, and her motivations. The single sentence mentions in the more political history portions could then be dropped as they would be rendered redundant and they’re more about an unchanging motivation than an advancing and changing political history.--Wowaconia 00:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted an answer to your suggestion about a new section called "Claims of a Divine Calling", and it went off into the ether. Here is what I said:

1) You raise a very important issue. If a reader comes here to learn about MB and what role she believed God played in her life and career, use of the phrase "Bachmann believes that God called her to..." is probably inadequate to explain that. A reader unfamiliar with the actual wording of Bachmann's claims might incorrectly assume that Bachmann meant that God sent her a "feeling" or "inspiration", etc. This was not the type of experience Bachmann claimed to have had. Bachmann's remarks indicate that she believes that God contacted her directly, communicated specific instructions to, that she spoke to God at the time and asked him questions, and that in certain instances God sent her supernatural visions to show her what to do. So perhaps in this case direct quotes from her remarks are the best way of explaining to readers what she believes about her relationship with God.

2) I foresee a problem with setting this out as a separate section. To my knowledge, there's only one documented, reliable record of Bachmann claiming that God told her to do the things she's done, and that's the Mac Hammond Christian Living Center testimony that is cited in the footnotes. If do it as a separate section, that, to my knowledge, will be the only verifiable instance of her making such claims (though I strongly suspect she's made the same claims in other religious venues.) That is the only instance that is non-controversial; it can't be denied because it was caught on videotape before an audience and distributed all over the web. I asked around and so far no other local Bachmann watchers have informed me of a documented instance in which she's made similar claims. I will keep asking.--BillPrendergast 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've spent a couple of days talking to people who have files on B's public statements. They can't come up with any other documented instances in which MB claims that God came to her and told her to run for office--besides those claims caught on video at the Mac Hammond church. That doesn't mean she hasn't made the same claims in other venues--I'm inclined to believe she has--but no Bachmann tracker I've spoken to has come up with anything that would meet Wiki standards for documentation.--BillPrendergast 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichele_Bachmann_eaa7.html"