Talk:Michele Bachmann/Archive 1

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

message: 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.
- I disagree with this.  This reference should stay, because Michele Bachmann frequently claims to be a tax litigation attorney (present tense).  The facts are that she is a former tax litigation attorney.  Her ads said former (this was probably after the Dump Bachmann blog published the evidence of her not currently eligible to practice law.  I think this should not be a section by itself, but the material should be included in the section on her career as tax litigation attorney for the IRS.  Lloydletta 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility to Practice Law in Minnesota 

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

message: 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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nice SMEAR Job Wikipedia 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Watch out for those pre-election scrubs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The footnotes to the article have been trashed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IMHO--refer to her as "Bachmann" not as "Michele" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the Intelligent Design thing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What about Pulkrabek's comments? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Did she pull her kids out of the Charter school after quiting? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Did she even want the School Board position? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should article be split? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Statements:Bachmann believes that God called her to run for Congress and the Minnesota State Senate. 

message: User:Lloydletta takes issue with the statement "From 1988 to 1993, Bachmann was a U.S. Treasury Department attorney in the US Federal Tax Court located in St. Paul, Minnesota. Representing the Internal Revenue Service in hundreds of cases, both civil and criminal, she prosecuted people who underpaid or failed to pay their taxes."
Lloydletta continues to remove reference "to hundreds of cases". This editor states that "This isn't backed up except by Michele Bachmann's own claims"
I point out that the Wikipedia standard WP:V#SELF states:
:"Material from self-published sources...may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."
I maintain that in a six year career at the IRS that it is inconceviable that she was not involved in hundreds of cases. These are tax courts and even civil tax courts so the idea of a lengthy LAW & ORDER type trial is not what's going on. Usually these courts issue fines. I find no reason to drop her claim that she worked on hundreds of cases. I do not see how this is contentious or self-serving, I think if she hadn't she would have been fired. I think it should be included because "it is about events directly related to the subject".--Wowaconia 10:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her claim to have worked hundreds of cases for the IRS should be allowed to stand. 

message: The edits added by 1shamrocks9 is extremely NPOV.  That account only contributed those edits and nothing else to Wikipedia.  If you read the changes, you'll easily see the bias.  I propose we remove them.
Comatose51 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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 its 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. 
*Note: The above was an unsigned comment originally appearing - Revision as of 04:27, 11 October 2006 by 68.169.41.40 (as per history in Talk:Michele Bachmann/Archive 01)
- I disagree with this.  This reference should stay, because Michele Bachmann frequently claims to be a tax litigation attorney (present tense).  The facts are that she is a former tax litigation attorney.  Her ads said former (this was probably after the Dump Bachmann blog published the evidence of her not currently eligible to practice law.  I think this should not be a section by itself, but the material should be included in the section on her career as tax litigation attorney for the IRS.  Lloydletta 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. The histories got moved with the archival - you can get to it via the history tab on the archive page. Usually histories don't get moved like this - I think it only happens when the entire page is archived using a page move - but they are still accessible via the archive page. ATren 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility to Practice Law in Minnesota 

message: While much has been made of her kissing Bush at the State of the Union, for those of you who missed it (like me) there is copyrighted picture here: http://cache.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/0f4a067c335a50ebeaa0f28d81e1faab.jpg
:I wouldn't bother trying to post it in the article as a bot will merely delete it for not being public domain.--Wowaconia 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of kissing Bush 

message: Editors, please note that the sub-pages of this article (Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI, Michele Bachmann's 1999 school board campaign, Michele Bachmann and the 2000 election, Michele Bachmann and the 2002 election have been nominated for deletion at this link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Bachmann, EdWatch, and MFI. The information was moved from the main article solely because of KB size concerns and is well sourced. Your imput on this matter would be appreciated.--Wowaconia 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You jumped the gun on that Waconia, it's best to simply move excessive information into a /draft/ page off the main for example Michele Bachmann/drafts. So that one day later it can be revived or integrated. Some of those spinoff pages are well sourced sure, but they are not notable in the scope of the biography of Michele Bachmann. I'm sure small town elections might be fabulous newsworthy items but they deserve a short mention at best. .:davumaya:. 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my paragraph carefully once over before you reply so that you do not end up having to type a page of response. Instead of making "spin-off" pages, I suggested to Waconia that we create a /drafts/ subpage in which material can slowly be re-added back overtime in a coherent sense. I don't think you understand there is no such thing as "removal" of information in Wikipedia. All is catalogued. And there is no such thing as destroying the original gathering work of contributors. In Wikipedia, if the information is unsourced or without a reliable source, fails WP:Notability and cannot be WP:Verifiable, it can be removed at will with no regard to the "gathering work" as you speak of. You are very welcome to copy all the material here and redistribute it on your own website or another Wiki-website, as all Wiki content has a free license. However I think you do not have the entire idea of how Wikipedia is run in terms of how articles or specifically WP:Biography articles should be regarded. .:davumaya:. 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Davumaya—I did read your paragraph before I typed up a page of response. At your suggestion I read it again--carefully--before typing up this response.
Let’s dispose of this, first. You wrote: “You are very welcome to copy all the material here and redistribute it on your own website or another Wiki-website, as all Wiki content has a free license.” Yes, I know that. But the reason that other contributors and I researched content for this article is that we wanted it to appear here, on Wikipedia, so that users of Wikipedia would get sourced and valuable information on this subject. What we are discussing is what should appear here, in the main entry, easily available to the casual user looking for pertinent factual information about the subject.
You also wrote: “I don't think you understand there is no such thing as "removal" of information in Wikipedia. All is catalogued.” I do understand that, but again: what we are discussing is what should appear in the main entry, not “what should be catalogued.” Removing factual information from an entry is: removal. User attempting to find information on the entry are not likely to consult the “back catalogue” of preserved information; they’re going to consult the main entry.
You also wrote: “In Wikipedia, if the information is unsourced or without a reliable source, fails WP:Notability and cannot be WP:Verifiable, it can be removed at will with no regard to the "gathering work" as you speak of.” I don’t know why you pointed that out, because I’m not arguing for preservation of “unsourced/unrealiably sourced” information in this Wiki entry or any other Wiki entry. The material which we are discussing is, almost without exception, reliably sourced by Wiki standards.
My objections to the removal of sourced material from the main entry remain, and I don’t think your answer even addresses those objections. I can see no reason to remove factual material from the present entry (and relegate it to a “drafts” page) until a better version of the entry is created and submitted. Doing so, in my opinion, would represent a kind of academic vandalism; a de facto suppression of valuable factual information under the guise of “making things more coherent” or “style guidelines.” To my mind, when you balance  “accuracy,” “verifiability,” “ease of reader access to information” against “coherence of article style” and “length”—the former concerns outweigh the latter, and by quite a bit. Your suggestion about relegating fact-checked portions of the entry to “drafts” is not a good suggestion, because it would make it harder, not easier, for casual Wiki users to find factual information about the subject of the entry. And that, in my opinion, subverts the purpose of the Wiki project. 
Note that I am not arguing that concerns about length and style and standards and coherence are irrelevant, or count for nothing. I am pointing out that your suggestion (sending it off to drafts) doesn’t *resolve* those concerns, and at the same time subverts the Wiki purpose of getting reliable factual information to the public.
So I now have two suggestions. My first suggestion is that you leave the entry in basically the form that it is now until you or some other person has redrafted the entry to make it better—more “coherent,” as you would have it. I don’t see any good reason to move credibly sourced, pertinent, factual information into a “drafts” folder before any real attempt has been made to address your concerns. I do not see why sourced factual material should be removed from the main entry and “slowly be re-added back over time”—a decision to do that, in my opinion, is decision to do a disservice to readers, voters, and researcher looking for facts in an election year. You know as well as I do that if you or anyone else has a better draft—an entire draft or a re-drafts of proposed sections—you’re free to submit it at any time. Why make readers wait on the established facts that have already been produced for the entry, until you or some other person creates a draft that satisfies “length” concerns? Why not put your “drafts” of a newer, “more coherent” entry on the “drafts” page, instead of taking removing valuable information from the existing entry? Until you or someone else actually comes up with a better version that preserves all the important material, I oppose the removal of the existing version from the main entry, because this would make the information in the existing version less accessible and harder to find for the casual user. Surely that’s not the goal of Wikipedia.
The second suggestion is the one I made before: about subheadings with links that lead to other pages. An example of my second suggestion already appears in the body of this Wiki entry. If look at the section of the article entitled “2006 campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives”, you will see a link below labeled “Minnesota 6th Congressional District Election, 2006.” A similar subheading/linking procedure could be used to direct readers and researchers to the more detailed information on a particular area. Is that an option to address the “length” concerns, in your opinion?66.41.147.130 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: In regards to your last two paragraphs, my former argument stands about removing information that is deemed irrelevant--I'll add, even if it's reliably sourced. In regards to you earlier litany of paragraphs that needlessly address specific points of my response for what value to this discussion I do not know, it's clear you have some kind of WP:Conflict of interest. You state we wanted it to appear here who is the big we and what is the agenda you are pushing? This is not a democracy or an academic forum. As I see the article is an inflated biography that does not accomplish much for the reader or the subject. As such it could use a speedy trimming of content. It will be up to the other we's to determine what should stay or not, at this time I am not ready to do any of this. .:davumaya:. 07:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  davumaya--your former argument stands--about removing information that is deemed irrelevant--because no one here is challenging that argument. Try removing items that *you* deem irrelevant--there is nothing to prevent you--and editors who deem them relevant will put them back. I don't see the point in you spending your time doing that, but it is an alternative to deletion or removal of valuable information to a "drafts" page. If you do try it, I beg you to bear in mind that a source fact that may seem "irrelevant" to you as an editor may seem very relevant and important to a Minnesota voter, a Minnesota student, a Minnesota teacher or researcher, a Bachmann constituent, critic, or supporter--many, many present and future readers will suffer if you or another editor delete sourced information because it seems irrelevant to *you.* There is no requirement that I know of that all the Wiki articles about Congresspeople be written with the same emphasis on the same types of information. And local constituents and Minnesotans may have more interest this this Congressman than other constituents have about theirs--hence the chronic interest in devoting so much time to the collection of information and revision for accuracy in this entry, and keeping it current.
Davumaya asked me:  we wanted it to appear here who is the big we and what is the agenda you are pushing?"
--"We" is every single person who has contributed to and revised this entry since it was first put up, years ago. But I don't know who the "big" we is--to the best of my knowledge, I don't know personally any of the other persons who have contributed and revised this article over the past few years. I know one person who signed her real name on the talk page, as I did here and have always done. She and I are contributors to an anti-Bachmann blog in Minnesota. But most of this article was done by dozens of other Wiki editors and contributors on this entry; I have no idea who they are or what their agenda is. I have no idea why they are so interested in this political figure. "We" do not hold meetings, "we" do not know each other, some of the editors are undoubtedly Bachmann supporters and Bachmann critics. But because we have devoted all this time over the years to this entry: it's clear that all of "us" want the documented, accurate and factual information that survive Wiki standards for objectivity to appear in the entry, on the main page, and that "we" don't want it removed. I hope that is clear; the reason that people bother to research and write material that passes Wiki standards, it that they want it to appear on Wikipedia--not some other web page, some other "place" that is not consulted by so many readers. That is the "agenda" that "we," all the contributors to and editors of the article, are "pushing."
You tell me that:  "This is not a democracy or an academic forum." No, but it's not a place that removes *relevant, sourced* information from the encyclopedia in the interests of "saving space" or "coherence." The project starts with an invitation to ANYONE to write or edit--the project is about gathering and making available important, accurate and relevant information FIRST, "style guidelines" SECOND. As for objectivity and point of view concerns, I respectfully suggest that objectivity and point of view are compromised if an objective editor waits until the summer before an election to decide that the format of a longstanding article on a politician doesn't meet Wiki standards.
You wrote: "As I see the article is an inflated biography that does not accomplish much for the reader or the subject." You should present your opinion, but in this case your opinion is wrong. There are problems with "length" and "coherent style", as you pointed out, but these are offset by the very valuable factual information about this political figure's beliefs, agenda, life, voting record, actions. If were to check for other existing biographies on this person, you would find that none is so complete or informative--or accurate--as this one right here, for all its style flaws. That is why you get the litany of paragraphs from me on leaving the information gathered together here the way it is, where it is, until someone actually devotes the time to do a better draft.BillPrendergast (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for Deletion 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "GOP-09-07-06" :
** 
**  Retrieved on November 10, 2006
* "B4C" :
**  Retrieved on November 12, 2006
**  Retrieved on November 12, 2006
DumZiBoT (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: I'm not a Bachmann supporter by any means (I'm from Minnesota and I can honestly say she is one of my LEAST favorite MN politicians). Nevertheless, I think including her in Category: McCarthyism and including three McCarthy-related topics in the "See Also" section smells like POV-pushing.
There are other individuals and groups that engage in (what I believe to be) McCarthyist tactics, such as Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz, but it would be inappropriate to maintain links to McCarthy from the "See Also" sections of those articles, just because I believe they use McCarthyist tactics. The same should apply to Bachmann no matter how much I or you dislike her...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also dislike her and also think that the links are probably inappropriate.  The exception would be if charges of McCarthyism have been a significant issue, or if she had some other tie to Joe McCarthy, in which case a brief mention in the text would be better than an unexplained "See also" link.  I'm removing the category and the dubious links, but anyone who can provide some kind of support for them should present the information here. JamesMLane t c 03:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh, that would be incorrect. The term Neo-McCarthy is not a factually based term, it is conjecture. 
Would it be appropriate to mention this or this? JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: No it wouldn't. (Personally I think all that's needed is a link to the Wonkette writeup but as a well-behaved editor I know that's a no-no too.) Tama1988 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using obvious biased sources, such as censurebachmann.com, ActBlue (identified as Democrat), and even a "nuanced site" like Wonkette, would throw up red flags and get this entry locked with an NPOV sign. Therefore, the answer would be No. Kagurae (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthyism links in "See Also" section 

message: Wasn't she one of the major faces of the opposition to the bailout bill?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.215.130 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bailout Bill 

message: I think a section should be added about how Bachmann is beginning the Neo-McCarthy movement in America by saying that Americans (Democrats in particular) are not patriotic.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/17/bachmann-anti-american/#comment-5291196
: That would be violating the neutrality of this article, and any thought of doing such a thing would be excised almost immediately as a violation of WP:POV. Think Progress is also not an unbiased source, and to use them would violate the provisions of WP:POV. Thirdly, you are using a reference to a comment, which is also a violation of WP:POV. So, I think the answer on this is "No, there will not be a section in relation to the posted link." The idea about this being a Neo-McCarthy movement is an opinion, not a fact, and you should know better than that. Kagurae (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bachmann starts new Witch Hunt 

message: In 1976, Michele and her then boyfriend supported the Presidential bid of Jimmy Carter. I deleted a description of him taken from an Encyclopedia: he "made much of being a born-again Christian". Nowhere in this section of the WP article -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- is Michele Bachmann herself described as being a born again, and indeed she is not, she belongs rather to this traditional Lutheran sect, founded 1850. In this section, there *is* a very relevant point made: nominee Jimmy Carter, Michele, and her boyfriend all considered abortion immoral. The other description of Carter in a biography of Michele Bachmann is irrelevant and/or POV. It would be POV if it were intended to refute some claim about Carter's principles or actions. 
Hurmata (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant and/or POV description of nominee Jimmy Carter 

message: Her comment was denounced by Colin Powell as "nonsense" in an October 19, 2008 interview. Powell said: “This business of... a congressman (sic) from Minnesota who’s going around saying, ‘Let’s examine all congressmen to see who’s pro-America and who’s not pro-America. We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity.”
Powell calls Bachmann statements ‘nonsense’ - St. Cloud Times, MN 
Re: Congresswoman Bachmann's proposal, Against the Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs Act (correct actual name, please).
Bachmann's proposal asks for a ban on a bill written to remove all standard incandescent light bulbs by (year) in favor of fluorescent bulbs. She says that fluorescent bulbs 'add mercury pollution' to the air. This is false as stated (find article describing properties of fluorescent bulbs); while it is true that when BROKEN these bulbs emit mercury and it is advised that people in the room leave it immediately and air the room out, I have seen nothing which states that, just by burning them, mercury is emitted into the air. While Bachmann may have a point that Congress sometimes goes too far in 'intruding' into people's lives more than is necessary (I would add as unnecessarily 'intrusive', as many have done, the mandate to ban television reception which does not conform to High Definition reception; this has already rendered some people's televisions unusable or problematic)), her using less-than-accurate information about fluorescent bulbs causing 'mercury pollution' (unless they are broken) brings up the possibility of cui bono, where this bill is concerned; e.g. facts: GE makes bulbs/ GE has come out against mandating fluorescent bulbs (which last far longer than incandescent bulbs)/ therefore, is GE donating to Bachmann's campaign? The answer to this would be a helpful one to put in Wikipedia where this bill is concerned. (Information100 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bachmann's comment denounced as "nonsense" by Colin Powell 

message: There is something odd about the Coburn School of Law. A Google search brings up very little if anything, there is no official web site for such a school it seems, even under the Oral Roberts University site at oru.edu. There is also no Wikipedia article on the school, and even the ORU article's only mention of Coburn is in reference to Bachmann. Anyone know anything else about this school? -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more information : "The ABA yanked Coburn’s accreditation in 1981 over its Christian litmus tests for students and faculty but later reinstated it. However, the law school closed in 1986 and donated its library to Pat Robertson’s Regent University in Virginia. Regent then started its own law school but didn’t receive ABA accreditation until 1996." -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coburn School of Law? 

message: From her "Personal History" section to her election results, alot of information has been deleted Qwerspam (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion per se isn't problematic. I just finished deleting several passages from the article, mostly for being un-encyclopedic or, in some cases, pushing into noticeable POV. Without reviewing the specific edits you are citing, it's hard to know whether they constitute "gutting", or were merely improvements in an article that, even now, seems fairly long, with an editorial balance that sometimes seems to be flirting with a pro-Bachmann POV that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- John Callender (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has been gutted by numerous deletes 

message: In the sub paragraph "Partial retraction", Bachmann is quoted as saying "That's why your listeners need to know.". Actually a "what" instead of the "why" would make more sense to me, can it be that this is a typo or did she say "why"? --87.155.225.101 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: Took out the link because it went to the wrong Bob Anderson.  Perhaps someone who knows how can make a proper link to a stub aricle or whatever it's called.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.27.57 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Anderson 

message: How does the "Awards" section add anything to validity of this page? There are hundreds of opinion surveys that bloggers/papers conduct that could be listed here in this section. Looks like a hit job, plain and simple. Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.180.210 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of Awards 

message: Where should Ms. Bachmann's now infamous comment -- "Michael Steele, you be da man! You be da man!" -- be inserted?  Austinmayor (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it relevant to the article?
I think its relevant because it displays context.  She is clearly mimicking an urban or african-american colloquialism as a gesture of praise...
In the new era of Obama...I, like any other, would believe its appropriate to point this face out...but if you want to "white-wash" it...forget it then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiznaw (talk • contribs) 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the First African-American Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) 

message: User TharsHammar just trimed alot of material. I fully support this. Could you please do the same for some of the other sections as well? TIA --Tom (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had made an agreement with CENSEI that I would focus on trimming the early career and he would work on trimming the latter stuff.  I agree that this article needs to be chopped down, then rebuilt as needed.  I would like to know what the plan is for the trimming of the 110th congress material before I go at it, as a start we should remove the subcategories from the box. TharsHammar (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am giving up for now aftr reading the stuff about the Pope being the anti christ :) Good luck. --Tom (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have grouped some of the controversial stuff together as an interm step.  This material can either be broken off into another article, or it can be further trimmed or deleted.  More work needed.  TharsHammar (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Slowly working through the 110th Congress stuff, starting at the bottom up and only half way done.  I'm done for now.  Others please continue trimming. TharsHammar (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better TharsHammar, but still needs more "work", keep going :). I removed some categories and blog stuff from last week that was reverted as "vandalism" which is not helpful. --Tom (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't mind that. I know that those sub articles can be a really magnet for adding every "detail" under the sun and can be very problematic, and most editors here do not approve of them I believe, ect, but it sure helps to keep the "main" bio manageabled, imho. I actually don't go near controversial sub articles, since I consider them containment sites for toxic material :) Anyways, the amount of weight given to the controveries right now seems undue. Can't this "stuff" be covered more susinctly? --Tom (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triming of "material"