Talk:Marilyn Musgrave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Marilyn Musgrave is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."
This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents

[edit] Criticism

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative organization dedicated to private property rights. Seems POV to add criticism of the best know national evironmental scorecard, based on a 2002 memo from them, don't ya think? None of the votes covered in the memo refer to 2005 and 2006. If you have a more recent criticism it might be more relevant, maybe LCV incorporated the criticism in their scorecard since 2002 since I find no recent criticism.

NEA fund is incorrect. Its a professional organization (ie labor union) supporting public education and educators...why take that out? It clearly explains what their position is in giving her and F (as does the link), which your edit does not. It's also the largest professional organization in the country...why is that not important in substantiating their criticism? Simplifying their stated legistlative priorties to basically 'nothing' seems POV. I'm sure Musgrave supporters are proud of the 'F' anyway but that's beside the point.

You want to add balance?

How about adding a 'Support' section instead, with a Grade A from the NRA and a 100 approval from the Christian Coalition? I'll start but I don't have time to add all the details and cites right now. Seems a better route than route you took.

Overall, I have no complaints from your edits O^O. You have consistently done a great job increasing accuracy, negating POV, and being fair but this one seems a bit much. Thanks. Tossloss

Hello Tossloss - thank you for your praise of my prior edits. I don't see myself as really "pro-" or "anti-" Musgrave, but I'd like to see the article to be as technically correct as possible. I'll respond to three points you raised, but I also think I have a legitimate question to ask.
  1. Regarding the "League of Conservation Voters" - I had never heard of this organization before today and did (a very small) amount of research to see what more I could learn about them. They appear to be a progressive-leaning organization, which tends to back Democrats. The citation I gave was one source of criticism towards them, perhaps there is a better source, but I think all of this needs to be considered in light of the question I am building towards.
  2. Regarding the NEA fund, perhaps my interpretation of the source of this information is wrong. I am basing this on the fact that the cited webpage contains the text "Paid for by the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education" at the bottom.
  3. Regarding a desire for "balance", well, like I said I'm not really a Musgrave supporter. I'm trying to keep what is posted HERE factual and correct, but that doesn't mean I want to go scour the internet to post every bit of praise and reward that she has ever recieved. I fear that if we all did that, the article would be worsened, and would just be a laundry list of complaints by critic and praise by supporters.
So, the question I really want to ask is, what threshold should we have for including information here? I'm sure there are plenty more ratings and "ten worst" lists we could add, but where do we draw the line for which ones are worth inclusion? For example, Maxim Magazine recently ran their "Top Ten Elected Douchebags". Would that one be worthy of inclusion on the biography pages of the politicians involved?
The more I reflect upon this, the less I think that these "top ten" lists should even be mentioned here. Reviewing the standards for biographies on WikiPedia I see: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability" - I don't think that listing all her critics really serve to explain why she is notable. I don't have any problem with the way we've written up the controversies she has been involved in, especially as they were all newsworthy. - O^O 02:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

o^o I understand what you are saying. I have put some effort into a more balanced approach. Try it on for size. If you don't like it better than the existing edit you have my 100% support to completely revert back to the previous edit rather than mess with it at all!!! I'm tired and probably won't be back unless I see vandalism. Thanks again.

PS Also, regarding your main point about lists...I don't know the answer. I guess there would be a line crossed at some point and Maxim Douchebags might definitely be it :) The currently listed ones seem appropriate (to me) as she is notable for her extreme positions on these particular political issues, be they good or bad depending one's POV.

Tossloss, I think your edits are just fine. The open question of where to "draw the line" can perhaps be crossed another day. - O^O 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Vandalism

Dear Partisan Editors, please stop posting silliness like accusations that this congressman wants to see mothers die in abortion cases etc etc etc. Keep the information neutral and without POV or others will do it for you. DNC talking points posted with either have the info from the other side added to provide balance or will be removed. Bachs


[edit] POV wrt gay rights

This sentence "As a Colorado State Representative and Senator, Musgrave spent much of her time authoring bills to defend the institution of marriage by means of denying rights to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Coloradans and their families" is actually a combination of pro-gay-rights pov and anti-gay-rights pov - quite an accomplishment. Despite the equal time, it's still not neutral. I'm not familiar with Musgrave so I'm not sure that anything I write would be factually accurate. Rhobite 04:37, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Marraige is not a right, if I had a right to get married than if no one would marry me than my rights would be violated - this and other types of arguments on policy do not belong on a member of congress's wiki entry and is best posted on the gay marraige wiki entry. Bachs

Choice of marriage partners is a right, actually (Loving v. Virginia, 1967).

Marriage has been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a "fundamental" right guarded by the United States Constitution. Your legal reasoning is circular and nonsensical. There is nothing inccorect about the cited sentence. Agrippina Minor 18:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hospital legislation

The most recent edit mentioned only her efforts on "marriage", but that conflicts with the information about the bill that would make it harder for gay parents to see their children in the hospital. As a result, I changed the wording. --JamesB3 06:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DeLay

None of the allegations against DeLay have been proven. Ronnie Earle, the Tom Delay prosecutor, has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [1] One of the charges filed by Earle was summarily dismissed by trial judge Pat Priest. Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [2] [3] [4]


This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, its unfair and biased.

[edit] More Delay

In an effort to come to a compromise with editor roma the paragrapgh reads thusly. This way BOTH dems and reps have thir facts represented.

Musgrave received $30,000 in campaign contributions from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ARMPAC. After DeLay was indicted, Musgrave's opponents attacked her for not returning the money or donating it to charity.[5]Republicans say that the charges by Ronnie Earle against DeLay are politically motivated because Earle has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [6] Republicans also criticized Earle for making a movie called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [7] [8] [9]


In a final compromise with Roma we agreed on this paragrapgh

Musgrave received $30,000 in campaign contributions from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ARMPAC. After DeLay was indicted, Musgrave's opponents attacked her for not returning the money or donating it to charity.[10] Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict. [11] [12]

In response to Bachs' edits, I've rewritten the paragraph to shorten it. I've left the anti-Earle links IN the paragraph, to avoid charges of bias. But, really - this article isn't the place to get into extended arguments about ARMPAC money - there is a wikilink to that article, and to an article on Tom DeLay, and that and a brief amount of context may suffice, I hope. John Broughton 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


John, there is no fight, however if you are going to include partisan accusations than both sides must be represented. You have defined "fighting" as showing both sides of the facts, that is a convenient position to take when someone is pushing a partisan point of view or is trying to slant REAL balance or neutrality. So either both sides of the story will be there or no reference to DeLay or CREW should be mentioned. Since ARMPAC has a link, than no mention of DeLay is needed because, according to you, they can follow the link right? CREW is a partisan action committee by their own admission, therefore just inserting their allegation without the other side is not neutral, and is partisan and grossly unfair. Until you come up with a way that provides REAL balance and neutrality this edit will be reverted. Bachs

The CREW allegations and the ARMPAC money are completely separate issues. There is no relationship between them, and hence no connection between the question of what the article should say about ARMPAC and that of what it should say about the CREW allegations. NatusRoma | Talk 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NatusRoma, I am sure that this is your opinion, but unfortunately it doesnt reflect reality. The ARMPAC allegations and the CREW allegations have one thing in common, they are both allegations made by known out of the closet partisan players that are unproven. Since this is indeed the case than both sides of the allegation will be told. Bachs

The CREW list and the ARMPAC money are distinct in that the neutrality of the article's discussion (or lack thereof) of each topic is independent of that of the other. If one were neutral, and the other were biased, the first wouldn't magically become biased just because the other one was biased. Therefore, conflating the two topics is unhelpful. NatusRoma | Talk 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to opponent's website

On 17:46, 10 March 2006, Rhobite asked, in the edit summary: any reason we're linking to her opponent's campaign site?

Good question. The opponent (Angie Paccione) doesn't have a wikipedia article of her own. If she did, then the link should be moved to that article, and not be in the Musgrave article. As it is now, if a reader wants to know what Musgrave's opponent is saying about Musgrave, or how Musgrave's opponent is different, there is a link to find out. John Broughton 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There's already a link to Paccione's website within the body of Musgrave's article. I think that that may be most appropriate. NatusRoma | Talk 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous poster: "Article is poorly written, extremely partisan"

Wow, I can't believe how poorly this article was written. For example, the following is so extremely partisan that it's almost funny:

"Musgrave also spent time on social issues, particularly authoring bills to deny marriage rights and parental rights for gays and lesbians seeking recognition as families. One of her final, failed bills would have made it much more difficult for same-sex partners to see their partner's children in the hospital during an emergency. Musgrave also cast the only vote against legislation to give battered spouses paid leave from work."06:12, 20 March 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.250.153 (talk • contribs)

Mr/Mrs/Ms/Whatever Anonymous Poster,
Which 'side' is the 'partisan' Article taking?
Why didn't you work to improve it instead of just complaining?
You do know that the Wiki is open to improvements by anyone, don't you? Bo 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit partisan. The paragraph is trying to pull at the heart strings of those who are in favor of same-sex marriage.(Especially the hospital stuff, but I'm not sure what her intent was on this bill so can't say if it's just stating a fact) It's close to being a weasely way to say "Musgrave is a homophobic witch." I'd promised myself not to edit anymore, but this did a bit of tweaking. It's still clear what she represents I think, but is less loaded in phrasing. I hope the change is acceptable. If not then oh well.--T. Anthony 07:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable text

I've removed the following, which was just added back into the article by an anonymous IP user. I removed it because after some extensive google searching, I found NOTHING other than wikipedia (and copies) that stated this. As best as I can tell, the basis for it (or part of it) is a COMMENT in a BLOG. If in fact there is a verifiable source, I'd be happy to see it added back to the article, WITH that source cited. John Broughton 18:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

One of her final, failed bills would have made it much more difficult for same-sex parents to see their children in the hospital during an emergency. Musgrave also cast the only vote against legislation to give battered spouses paid leave from work.


[edit] They Say That

They say that in the sentence is not appropriate and makes the paragraph less neutral. It is an undispuited fact that Ronnie Earle has a history of failed indictments of political enemies of bothe parties. It is also an undisputed fact that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries. They say that presents non-neutral language designed to diminish the credibility of one side of the facts, it is partisan and should be removed. Bachs

Note the careful placement of the phrase "say that" in the sentence "Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because they say that prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict." The phrase "they say that" occurs before "prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)", but not before "Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict." In this way, the sentence so written makes the distinction between the undisputed idea that Earle asked multiple grand juries to charge DeLay and the disputed idea that Earle indicts people for opposing him politically rather than for actual wrongdoing. NatusRoma | Talk 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waters and Jefferson and CREW

Hey NatusRoma, I see that you found that two of the safest Democrats in the country were critiqued by CREW.... so why is it that the same paragraph about CREW gets removed from Jeffersons (Democrat) wiki entry? I am truly shocked that you are not as aggresive into keeping the CREW paragraph on Jefferson's wiki article as you are republicans. If you hurry you can go include it before anyone reads this. Bachs 21:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NatusRoma, if you are going to include partisan accusations than both sides must be represented. CREW is a partisan outfit. It is no different than me posting on every Democratic politicians web site what Ann Coulter had to say about them. Since CREW are self admitted partisan activists both sides of the story will be there or no reference to CREW should be mentioned. Therefore just inserting their allegation without all the facts is not neutral, and is partisan and grossly unfair. You have been warned repeatedly about slanting the neutrality of articles and at this point it easily amounts to partisan vandalism. Bachs

This is utterly nonsensical. Until just now, I had not touched the CREW paragraph except to mention the year of the report in question. NatusRoma | Talk 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy" edits

I am going to revert much of the edits by this editor and by 192.55.4.36 (a dial-in account which may or may not be different editor). I want to note here that I'm holding off posting details about what might be seen as a pattern of deliberate edits and misreadings of a newspaper article to accomplish POV, to see if my changes are acceptable. John Broughton | Talk 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer, of course, that you discuss how you find my edits lacking here. But given that you are "holding off posting details", I will just watch your changes with interest and attempt to work with you to keep the article NPOV. - O^O 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, all yours. Quite frankly, I was unimpressed by the CREW summary of allegations. For most if not all of the other 20 Congressfolk, they actually wrote up extensively footnoted sections. For Musgrave, they simply scanned three newspaper articles, and I don't think they did a very good job of summarizing them.
What I just posted comes from source documents, not from the CREW summary. For example, the scanned article that discusses claims of franking problems doesn't exactly have a "smoking gun" in it. And what was in that scanned article wasn't in the wikipedia article -- I fixed the misleading section title about franking -- nor do I think it should be added. John Broughton | Talk 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
John, I did some minor formatting tweaks and added two subheaders. The subheaders make the outline now read like this:
   * 4.1 CREW "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress"
         o 4.1.1 Campaign headquarters
         o 4.1.2 District attorney endorsement
   * 4.2 Violation of military code
   * 4.3 Tom DeLay
My assumption here could be incorrect. I am assuming that since CREW criticized Musgrave with regards to her headquarters and her use of Franking, and since those are the next two topics discussed, that your intent was that those two points were being used as followups to CREWs accusations. Do you agree, or do you think that these should each be distinct and separate points, for example:
   * 4.1 CREW "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress"
   * 4.2 Campaign headquarters
   * 4.3 District attorney endorsement
   * 4.4 Violation of military code
   * 4.5 Tom DeLay

I'm going to go look at content next, but I just wanted to make clear this question on article structure. - O^O 23:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct; the first pattern (4.1 to 4.3) is valid. CREW said nothing about the military code or DeLay money. John Broughton | Talk 00:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, good job on the rewrite then, it reads much better than my first attempt. Regarding the changes I just made to the "US Marines" section, here are some things I tried to correct:
  1. If there was a violation of military code, it would have been the marines who violated it. Musgraves impropriety would have been in making the appearance - hence the subtitle change.
  2. Of the four sources originally cited, one appeared to be a comment posted to a blog, and the other was a dead link. I've changed to verifiable reliable sources.
  3. Quoting military code about what members shall not do seems more relevant than quoting what they may do.
  4. The statement "Therefore, according to Hunter, there was no violation" was not directly supported by the sources quoted.
I just think this version has less speculation and is more directly cited. - O^O 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that Musgrave is so innocent here (the Marines were invited; did they know to what type of event?; did Musgrave have a sense that perhaps the invitation should not be issued?), but intent is essentially unverifiable. So I don't disagree with your rewording. John Broughton | Talk 00:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It was claimed in one of the articles that Musgrave didn't know the agenda until she arrived. It was counterclaimed in a blog posting that she should have known since the event organizer works for Musgrave, but I don't think that the blog posting was citable. According to one of the articles, at least one of the marines attended the dinner as someone's date, and the offer to be "honored" came up at the last minute. I really don't know how culpable Musgrave was here; it could have been something premeditated, or it could be someone blowing an innocent gesture out of proportion. - O^O 15:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


The "controversy" stuff on here is ridiculous, it's insignificant and irrelevant to her posting. it's obvious that it's insignificant, but par for the course for wikipedia pages full of crap. good job editors, for proving once again why wikipedia can't be relied upon for anything 70.108.210.5 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Neutrality Tag

I do not see why this article has been tagged for POV/neutrality. I think the article does a good job explaining both the support and criticisms for Musgrave. I have not come across any blatent weasel words, or anything that could be considered too "far right" or "far left". I believe the tag should be removed, as this article seems as neutral as it can get. Trodaikid1983 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of Gay Bashing?

I was the one who added the Rolling Stone reference. The magazine website dubbed her as "Christian Soldier", as I originally wrote on this article. But then a user changed it into "Queen of Gay Bashing", which I cannot find reference on the magazine site. Can someone please check and possibly revert it? Wooyi 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April edits inserting POV

Edits by Thatpeteguy inserted unnecessary POV as well as messed up the formatting.

Musgrave allows her belief in christianity [sic] to move her away from representing her district truthfully.She [sic] has been called "Bush's rubber stamp" by those who feel she supports his agenda and not thier [sic] interests.


In the 2006 re-election section, official 2006 election results from the CO Sec. State that were sourced were removed as well.[13] Incorrect provisional numbers were re-inserted. Several reference links were destroyed. This comes close to sabotage of the article. Please don't trash articles like this. Hawk4free 18:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To all aspiring spindoctors It is amazing how some editors hide behind the POV tree whenever they feel the presence of the truth.POV could just as
easily be defined by not allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard.I live in the district Musgrave dictates over
and we all know here that she allows christian mythology to guide her.She has said as much numerous times.So if
I were to quote a news clip of some alternate news agency from this district.....oh wait there are none....hmmm.
guess I'll just have to live in reality and let you folks enjoy your psuedopedia.Cheers! --Thatpeteguy 23:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I am a Musgrave constituent, which accounts for my interest in this article. Therefore, you do not have a monopoly on this topic. I actually am not a supporter of Musgrave's and don't dispute some of your characterizations of her. However -- while there will always be disputes about objectivity versus subjectivity over articles like this -- I believe that a Wikipedia article is not one's personal forum, and I try to abide by that. What you are doing is a disservice to readers, only slightly different from the vandalism to this article done by Musgrave staff.[14]

Also, please do not overlook the fact that your edits and bad formatting needlessly destroyed the work of others. The reinsertion of inaccurate provisional election returns over the official Secretary of State returns was totally inappropriate.

Regarding Musgrave's statements on religion in public life, there is a section of the article addressing that. Note that it includes specific references.

It seems your issue is with the larger Wikipedia project. Perhaps you should start a blog. Hawk4free 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan

A passage about Klan's support of Musgrave was repeatedly deleted. She indeed received endorsement from the Klan and there was an inline citation. Why is it removed? WooyiTalk to me? 16:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply having an inline citation is not enough to NPOV a subject. Musgrave never sought the "endorsement" of the Klan, does not have a history with the Klan, and distanced herself from the "endorsement". Just because some wackjob group supports a particular person or "endorses" them doesn't mean it's newsworthy unless you are trying to POV an article. This would be the equivalent of mentioning a Fred Phelps endorsement of Al Gore. It's nonsense, and the only reason people are trying it is the hatred for Musgrave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.60 (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)