Talk:Marilyn Musgrave

message: 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.
:#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.
:#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.
:#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
thread_title: POV wrt gay rights

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hospital legislation 

message: 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.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.  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.   
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.
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.  
: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: More Delay

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Link to opponent's website 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anonymous poster:  "Article is poorly written, extremely partisan" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Questionable text 

message: 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)
thread_title: They Say That

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Waters and Jefferson and CREW

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Neutrality Tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Queen of Gay Bashing? 

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  April edits inserting POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ku Klux Klan 

message: The section on 2nd Amendment rights claims she "...successfully passed an amendment..." which begs the question "amendment to what?" Granted, it was probably an amendment to some larger bill that isn't really relevant to the article, but I think the word "amendment" usually shouldn't stand alone. I think the phrase would be better put as she "successfully passed a law..." (The exception to this rule would be phrases like "2nd Amendment" where we know what was amended.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...Passed an "Amendment"... 

message: Viz. "Agriculture Committee"
:From 2003 through 2005, $14.7 billion in crop subsidies went to the congressional districts of members on the House Committee on Agriculture, an analysis by the non-partisan Environmental Working Group found. That was 42.4% of the total subsidies. Musgrave is reported to have brought $330 million to her district. [49]
It would be nice to know how many districts are represented on the Committee vs. how many districts there are overall, or vs. how many primarily-agricultural districts there are (or acreage under cultivation, etc.).  The Committee's behavior is probably out of line but we can't tell how much so from the numbers given.  --96.233.95.60 (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many districts? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Marilyn Musgrave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040803023713/http://www.boston.com:80/news/nation/articles/2004/04/11/a_firm_voice_against_gay_marriage?mode=PF to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/11/a_firm_voice_against_gay_marriage?mode=PF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 23:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Marilyn Musgrave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2006G/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903043949/http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm to http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222182958/http://www.coralridge.org/imp/impact06051.aspx to http://www.coralridge.org/imp/impact06051.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210183952/http://www.westword.com/issues/2001-09-20/sports.html to http://www.westword.com/issues/2001-09-20/sports.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060727204023/http://musgrave.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1494 to http://musgrave.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1494
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326201749/http://musgrave.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1497 to http://musgrave.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1497
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326213610/http://musgrave.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=57885 to http://musgrave.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=57885
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081124235152/http://musgrave.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=31820 to http://musgrave.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=31820
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305080217/http://www.nrapvf.org/elections/State.aspx?State=CO to http://www.nrapvf.org/elections/State.aspx?State=CO
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117015301/http://www.nrapvf.org/WhatTheGradesMean.aspx to http://www.nrapvf.org/WhatTheGradesMean.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.cc.org/2004scorecard.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308053058/http://www.cc.org/about.cfm to http://www.cc.org/about.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220073718/http://www.nrapvf.org/About/Default.aspx to http://www.nrapvf.org/About/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marilyn Musgrave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930041901/http://opensecrets.org/travel/search_results.asp?trav=Marilyn+Musgrave to http://opensecrets.org/travel/search_results.asp?trav=Marilyn+Musgrave
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marilyn Musgrave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105030120/http://www.nrtwc.org/content_mail.php3?id=423 to http://www.nrtwc.org/content_mail.php3?id=423
*Added  tag to http://www.ag.org/Pentecostal-Evangel/conversations2003/4666_musgrave.cfm
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080815030211/http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marilyn_Musgrave to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marilyn_Musgrave
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marilyn Musgrave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925092042/http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/house/lib_cons.htm?o1=con_composite&o2=desc to http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/house/lib_cons.htm?o1=con_composite&o2=desc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified