Talk:Michele Bachmann

Consumer protection

The heading noting Congresswoman Bachmann's co-sponsorship of The Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act (H.R. 4008) inaccurately labels the legislation "Consumer Protection." It is not a consumer protection bill (it narrows merchant liability under the FCRA), but would be better classified as "Tort Reform." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abumanolo (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite unbalanced

This article seems far to focused on controversies surrounding Bachmann. I cleaned up a little of the over-the-top comments and some of the original research that was done. Nonetheless the controversies section is quite long and seems focused on somewhat mundane aspects. Arzel (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Jon Stewart's comment is undue weight. Per BLP, articles should not serve to denegrate the subject, and Stewart's mocking falls under that clause. It adds no other basis for inclusion other than to mock Bachmann. Arzel (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, why is Blumenauer's quote important other than to attack Bachmann? Per WP:NPOV we must careful to present a balanced tone. Just because something is said does not mean that what he said is important, this is especially true when dealing with partisan attacks from one party against another. Simply state Bachmann's position on Global Warming and her error. Blumenauer's opinion has no standing and without any context to what exactly he claims she was making up it leaves the reader confused as to the point of inclusion. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have an issue with Blumenauer's quote; as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually 0.000386% (380 parts per million), if Bachmann made a mistake in the math the quote is also at fault for overstating the actually % of CO2. I do not see the relevence of entire statement. Please consider removing or at least correcting this part of the article. --Bds babydoll (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Blumenauer's quote is correct. See Earth's atmosphere#Composition. You've forgotten that a percentage moves the decimal two places. 380 parts per million is 0.0386%, which rounds to .04%. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about the decimal point, but it is does not serve a point to illustrate her error. Her point was that CO2 makes up a fraction of the atmosphere. She is correct. She was wrong in her fraction, but her intent was correct. Pointing out the error is undue weight and doesn't add anything other than to denegrate the individual which is a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the info on carbon dioxide. I don't think it violated WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. And it's not really even a close case. There are three main prongs listed for the BLP policy. First, no original research. This is satisfied because there is a source for the fact that Bachmann was wrong about CO2. Second, verifiability. This isn't an issue; everyone her agrees that she is wrong. The wikipedia article on Earth's atmosphere agrees that Bachmann is wrong. Third is neutral point of view which requires that an article represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So the removal of Bachmann's error is the action contrary to NPOV. Many sources have criticized Bachmann's remarks on CO2. To allow Bachmann's remarks to stand without noting any of the rebuttal, especially when on this particularly issue Bachmann is objectively wrong and the critics are objectively right, acts to bias the page in a pro-Bachmann direction. And it certainly is relevant. When Bachmann is making an argument about the significance of carbon dioxide, it is relevant to explore whether she is familiar with the basic facts about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Further, the language pointing out her error wasn't inflammatory (i.e. didn't include insulting epithets). --JamesAM (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Yes she misspoke about the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmostphere. However, that is irrelevant to her argument. To focus on an irrelevant part of her argument which serves only to denegrate the person is undue weight and is a BLP violation. It is not like she was trying to prove or state that CO2 was x amount, only that it was a natural compound in the atmosphere. The language doesn't have to be exlipicitly inflammatory to imply a certain meaning. It is clear that the point of inclusion is to imply that she is stupid and present a strawman argument against her, ie. her opinion is not valid because she misstated the amount of CO2 in the atmposhere. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead to remove the conservative republican from the lead sentence. Is there a "standard" for how the lead sentence of politicians is crafted? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead should summarize who she is and what she is about. She is a Conservative Republican American Politician. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we do that for uber liberal/progressive/whateverthetermisthesedays and rightfully so. Her political "leanings" ect should be covered in the body of the article. Leave the "labels" out of the lead sentence. Maybe add back in republican/democratic if that is "standard" but leave out the qualifer. --Tom (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A little checking shows that labels does not seem to be done. I picked a few of the more well known from both sides and haven't found any labels. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the bit about some doctrinal statement of the denomination she belongs to really belong here when the local pastor of her own congregation seems not to agree with it? This is an article about her, not about her church or the denomination her church belongs to. But if it's important that she belongs to a church that believes this, then it's probably important to include much more relevant information about the church, as in their teachings that are more relevant to daily life than obscure eschatological claims. If there's any information to be had about how she actually interacts with Catholics, that might prove relevant. I don't think its inclusion is really to shed any light on her, though. It's probably just an attempt to make her sound as extreme as possible without providing any context or even giving any indication of her own views. Parableman (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph arguing for CFLs

If Wikipedia BLPs included every argument against the subjects' stances on issues, they would become very ponderous very quickly. As such, I have removed the paragraph arguing against Bachmann's stance against CFLs. Had the references directly referenced Bachmann, I could agree on their inclusion. The paragraph could be restored if references that include mention of Bachmann's involvement in this issue were used instead. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is not the article to argue their merits. Arzel (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu

Why is the Swine Flu section in there? I don't see the need to catalog the historical mistakes of every politician. It would be worthy if she was claiming that a democratic president had some correlation with swine flu, but it doesn't appear that she said that from the description. So, why is this needed at all?

Seels (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is undue weight. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Health Care

An edit of mine regarding health care was reverted because a Wikipedian thought it was "OR". I don't think this is true. Bachmann extensively referenced[1] Betsy McCaughey’s July 24, article Deadly Doctors, [2] published in the New York Post. Sarah Palin cited Bachmann’s opinion of Dr. Emanuel[3] when explaining her "death panel" statement. If Palin referenced Bachmann for her opinions, then she did. Any original research regarding Bachmann's influence on the "death panel" debate was done by Palin, not by any Wikipedian.

As to the opinion that the edit was "drastic" or "negative", the relevant point should be whether it accurately reflects the opinions of Michele Bachmann, regardless of how one feels about it. Read what Bachmann had to say for herself. Here is the link again.[4] Or you can go to Palin's facebook page (link above) which has a link to the Bachmann speech on YouTube.

Also, I'm surprised that anyone that doesn't like "drastic" "negative" stuff would leave in the part that calls Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel a "Deadly Doctor", and leave out the reasons why this is dubious.

Yet again, one editor thought it was less drastic and negative to leave in the "Deadly Doctor" comment, and remove the reasons why the comment is dubious. And yet again, this editor used the phrase "OR" without reading the references. Any OR, again, was not done by any Wikipedian.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the main focus of this article is Bachmann, and "This is NOT an article about Sarah Palin". However, separating logically related facts does result in sophistry as much now as with the original sophists. The reason this article exists is because Bachmann is notable, and she is notable to the degree that she has an infuence on others.Jimmuldrow (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your intent and I appreciate your referencing, but I do think you have slightly overstepped the bounds of WP:COATRACK. Trim it down a bit and focus it more narrowly on Bachmann's specific influence on the discussion and I'll support its inclusion. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like a good suggestion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is still focused on Sarah Palin. This section is not relevant to Bachmann outside of her reading the article on the floor of the house. Additionally, I am curious why you are working on this section in the sandbox of FoggyNotion. It almost appears as if you have mupltiple accounts which is expressly forbiden. Arzel (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Palin is mentioned only to the extent that Bachmann influenced her views. I only use FoggyNotion for an extra sandbox.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, your section used several facebook references which from what I have been able to find are not considered reliable sources. Not to mention you used them to do original research. Arzel (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, Palin's facebook page does accurately reflect what she said and how Bachmann influenced her views, as opposed to whether anyone agrees or disagrees with them. It is used only for that purpose, as opposed to stating any opinion on its reliability. Also, doesn't the press confirm Palin's facebook statements with her spokesperson? Again, the OR was done by Bachmann and Palin, and this is very clear cut if you review the references. Should we tell Bachmann and Palin to stop doing OR?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quite so quick to call this WP:OR. It's reasonably well referenced. While I would agree that under most circumstances Facebook is not a reliable source, I think it is permissible under some circumstances. I wouldn't consider it a reliable source of anything other than what Sarah Palin said on her own Facebook, but this is exactly how it was used here. I think striking the section (or most of it) leaves the section incomplete and unbalanced. I don't think it's enough to say Bachmann contributed to the discussion without saying how she contributed to it. Nor do I think the paragraph deleted here was too focused on Palin, and I think it does much to balance the section. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 09:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No attribution

In the section on the Chris Matthews interview, in the portion about the followup conversation with Katrina Van D H and Pat Buchanan, there's a quote attributed to no one, but referred to as "he." Buchanan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyloo (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Harrison Bachmann and AmeriCorps

The story as presented in this edit is not an attack, just a statement of fact without presenting any conclusions to the reader. This does not demonstrate or even suggest hypocrisy on the part of Michele Bachmann; what her son does may disappoint or annoy her, but cannot constitute hypocrisy on her part. WP:BLP violations are unsourced or poorly sourced assertions that may do harm to a living person. Negative information is not libel if it comes from a reliable source. This is not a BLP violation, even if it is taken as negative information. It is also relevant, in the same way that the opinions of Michelle Obama were deemed relevant during her husband's campaign. We cannot whitewash every biographical article of all negative information, nor should we. We should remove unreliable information that may constitute libel. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Wilhelm. Marchije•^speak/_peek 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is it important or relevant to Michele Bachmann? Arzel (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is her son. Of course it is both important and relevant to her! I would say that by any measure her son is as relevant to her as Jeremiah Wright ever was to Barack Obama, and that controversy has a whole article of its own, not to mention Obama's trivial association with Bill Ayers, about which Bachmann and her supporters made much hay during the election last year. I'm not suggesting that we should compete with the off-wiki headlines of the election cycle for some sort of "fairness", but even on-wiki these have been deemed fair game, and WP:NPOV says what's good enough for one side is good enough for another. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is her son's joining of AmeriCorp relevant to Michele Bachmann? Arzel (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, because he is her son, and because she has been such a vocal critic of the same organization. This is certainly a notable event, as it has received coverage in all the major media outlets. But it rates only a single sentence here, which I would say is about due weight. If it were being treated as a major event, I could see objecting to that, but it's just a concise statement of fact, properly sourced. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 07:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So it is an attempt to link the two. This is a BLP violation, and attempt to link Bachmann with the actions of her son to show some sort of hypocrisy. It has no comparison to Wright or Ayers since Obama is not related to either of them. He chose to have an association with both of them, the same cannot be said of your children. Furthermore, there is no other reason to have it in that section if not to make some causal link. On top of this her son is not notable, he does not have his own article. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain exactly why you think this is a violation of WP:BLP. To counter your points above, a politician's associations, be they personal, professional or familial are all brought under public scrutiny. It makes no difference if the association is one of choice or one of circumstance. Also, I haven't heard any statements from Bachmann disowning her son. Presumably she still associates with him, even if she is annoyed with some of his choices. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "causal link", but I can think of several reasons to include this in the article. Finally, her son needn't be notable in his own right, nor to have his own article, to be considered for inclusion in the article text. WP does not have any policy or practice of exclusion based on any such criteria. I see no reason to exclude this other than an attempt to whitewash the article of anything that might be seen as contentious to the subject. Again, such is not the purpose of BLP. BLP is for protecting the article's subject from unsourced claims. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several aspect to BLP that need to be enforced and I think you answered your own question. The only purpose for addition is to show some sort of hypocrisy on the part of Bachmann. Her son is not notable in his own right and it would be undue weight to include such a meaningless piece of information when it has no relationship to Michele Bachmann. It would be like the attempt to focus on Romney's grandparents. IE, Mitt Romney is against Polygamy, however his grandparents moved to Mexico in order to continue to practice. That was ruled not acceptable on his article because the actions of his grandparents had NOTHING to do with him. Just as the actions of Bachmann's son (who is a legal adult) have NOTHING to do with her. Seriously, what does her son have to do with her views on AmeriCorps? Arzel (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN, part of BLP, states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The fact mentioned here is relevant, and while it has been used by some pundits to make certain arguments, no such argument is made here. It is stated simply and factually, and it's well-referenced. I don't see the problem. All I see is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument misattributed to WP:BLP. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again. What does her son's actions have to do with Michele Bachmann's stance on AmeriCorp? You have not presented a reason why it is notable to HER. This is guilt by association, nothing more. Arzel (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've found this thread on WP:3O. It is a bit of a borderline case, but my personal opinion is that the information added by Wilhelm Meis should stay in the article: a brief, cold sentence and nothing more, but can stay. It is referenced, relevant and has been discussed in media. There is really no sensible reason to keep it away, and for sure it is not a BLP violation. WP:WELLKNOWN, correctly linked above, applies here. That "her son has nothing to do with her" is difficult to sustain; the Mitt Romney example is not completely appliable as a precedent, because usually grandsons do not influence grandparents, but mothers do influence behaviour of sons. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I'll ask you the same question. What does Bachmann's son's actions have to do with Bachmann's stance on AmeriCorp? Also, How is it relevant? It is not wellknown, if it were or he were there would be more than two articles from reliable sources (both from the Star Tribune). Arzel (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there are plenty more than two articles, but I didn't see the point in adding more references than necessary. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll concur with the WP:3O (and remove it from the 3O page ^_^) to keep the information in the article - WP:WELLKNOWN says it all, and one sentence certainly does not violate WP:UNDUE. There's nothing in WP:BLP that would prohibit it either. MildlyMad^Contribs 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been over a week. Can anyone explain why this is relevant to the section? Arzel (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to explain the obvious. This has been taken to 3O and two 3Os have been given. Your constant reverting is an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument, nothing more, nothing less. The only reason I see for pushing this issue is POV-pushing. There is nothing in WP:BLP that says all information in a biographical article must be favorable, only that it must be verifiable and come from reliable sources. The edit in question meets those requirements and conforms to NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Is there anything else I can do to demonstrate that WP:Consensus supports the edit? How about WP:NPOVN? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can give a reason why I see no reason why it belongs. It is a guilt by association and nothing less. Give me a reason to include. Furthermore, let me remind you who is pushing a POV. I am not trying to change her words or beliefs about AmeriCorps, but you certainly seem to be trying to push into this section the actions of her son which have NOTHING to do with her views. Arzel (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, it has been explained to you several times why it belongs and it can stay. Plus, there is no policy supporting the removal of such information. Consensus is to keep such information. and as such, it should stay. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's take it to WP:NPOVN and then we can finally put the issue to bed. I'd take it to NPOVN myself, but since I support its inclusion, wouldn't that be a bit WP:POINTY? Your move, Arzel. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A RfC maybe is more appropriate. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, please let's wait. If Arzen decides to stay within consensus this time, there is no need to stir up things more. Let's wait and see. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with concensus, but what we currently have is not concensus but force by number. Until either of you can provide a single reason why this has ANY SINGLE THING to do with her views on AmeriCorp is it undue weight, and completely unrelated. I don't even need a concensus to remove information that is nothing more than an attempt to link and present a hypocritical point of view against Bachmann and thus is a BLP violation. BTW, if you two want to help me do something constructive, why not help me address the multitude of dead links rather than encourage those sections to simply get deleted. Arzel (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I didn't even know who Bachmann was. I am an Italian living in the UK, go figure how much am I interested in Bachmann herself. So I am not trying to maker her look an "hypocrite" (and that's entirely your interpretation: mine is that it is a simply ironical fact of life) Still, the fact that her son joined something she is vehemently opposed to has been noted by several sources, and it is a quirk that is of some relevance on her biography -it doesn't happen every day that Richard Dawkins's son becomes pope, isn't it? And I see no BLP issue with that: it is a simple fact, we do not hide sources facts for WP:WELLKNOWN, which is part of BLP. Also no UNDUE issues if it is kept to a simple, sourced sentence in a long and complex article. Finally, yes, consensus is "force by numbers": if 99 say A and 1 says B, consensus is on A. That's all. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact is people here are using her son as a political hammer to try and point her out as a hypocrite. Her son's actions have nothing to do with her view, and if your view is that it is simply an ironical fact of life, then that gives even less validity for inclusion as wp is NOT a collection of random pieces of information. There is no other reason for inclusion than to make her look foolish. Arzel (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, please stop edit warring. I understand you disagree, but you won't solve it by repeatedly deleting information you don't agree with refusing any compromise with other editors. Also, all the "political hammer" statements are entirely your own POV. As for me, it's an "ironical fact of life", but it is a notable and reliably sourced ironical fact of life. As such, it deserves to stay. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is there even a section on the Americorps? Because she made a comment? That section seems like a strech. The son's actions/job work should probably stay in his bio article. Do we cover the other children's work, if she has other children? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Political positions

In the bulleted section of Political Positions, most of the cited sources are dead. Of the two remaining sources, one backs up her position on drilling for energy. Another source on Gay Marriage links to the bill, but not her position on the bill. Now it may be true that all of this statements are true, but as it stands, almost none of them can be verified. Arzel (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon further examination, this whole section has dead links and is mostly tied to sources which cannot be checked. Some serious cleanup needs to be done. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care

I think the original version made very similar statements with a lot less space, especially about the Bachmann speech about the editorial. The basics (as pointed out by TIME and other reliable sources) are that the Bachmann / McCaughey theory was misleading, in that it used selective quoting to make it sound like Emanuel wanted to ration all of health care, as opposed to "very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines". I think the original version sums this up in much less space, and was better. Crackenstein said that TIME might be incorrect, according to Crackenstein.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The recent additions are not only blatantly POV and violate WP:BLP, but have very little to do with this article. It is not our job to "prove" whether Bachmann is right or wrong. Seeing as how Crackenstein is on an edit-war bender (having violated WP:3RR some time ago), I'll wait until tomorrow to revert it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly an attempt here to whitewash Emanuel's contradictory positions by cherry-picking supportive sources and quotes while ignoring those that run counter to the desired effect. Time's editorializing is not reliable. Bachmann said nothing about rationing all of health care. She did perhaps go too far in saying "watch out if you're disabled," but Emanuel's writings and statements indicate that he does support age-based rationing under some circumstances. He has clearly contradicted himself, but the entries here and on Emanuel's page do not address that. Thanks to one user dominating this page, it emphasizes Bachmann being wrong when it is not that simple. The selective editing and massaging of Emanuel's record I've seen here is demonstrative of why Wikipedia cannot be considered an authoritative source.Crackenstein (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an old proverb that states "when you point one finger at another, you're pointing three at yourself." It's applicable here as in fact, you are the one attempting to cherry-pick quotes in order to give a false impression (and removing quotes which clarify facts but that contradict your opinion). As one of the reliable sources in the article states "We agree that Emanuel’s meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited." By repeatedly trying to obfuscate those two separate points and change the specifics of his quote to "in some circumstances" you were being disingenuous. And by doing it a dozen or so times in a day and a half, you were in clear violation of wikipedia's policies on edit-warring. Also, this is not the place to debate the veracity of his statements. We rely on reliable sources to draw those conclusions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to get your facts right before popping off, but since you fancy yourself a gatekeeper of information, you might at least give it a try. I did not change a quote to "in some circumstances" "a dozen or so times in a day and a half." Given your clearly sloppy approach to editing, you could be excused for apparently not noticing there were no quotes around those three words and that they were not inserted anywhere near a dozen times. But it was simply an attempt to summarize. Obviously the only summarizing which you self-appointed arbiters of truth will accept are those that fit your ideological bent and agenda. You are not relying on reliable sources and furthermore are ignoring indications in other sources that support the BALANCE I was trying to insert in this clearly one-sided, disingenuous entry. Yet at every turn, although I did not remove all questionable characterizations of Bachmann's statements, every attempt at inserting some balance here was taken down. Raise your arrogant, ignorant eyes above this text and you'll see I'm not the only one who has noticed the obvious bias of this page. I did not remove anything from the entry that indicated Bachmann was distorting Emanuel's views regarding health care for the disabled. What I was doing was circumscribing the characterization of her distortion in a manner that could be supported by the facts and noting Emanuel's undeniable support for age-based rationing of some health care resources. You and jimmuldrow, however, are apparently only interested in one set of facts, namely those that support your dishonest attempt to mislead and whitewash the record. This experience has given me both disappointment in that I generally enjoy Wikipedia and find useful information on it, and encouragement in that it is nevertheless not considered an authoritative source of information on serious topics. You and jimmuldrow are doing your part to maintain the latter condition.Crackenstein (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil during discussions and remember to avoid attacking or insulting other editors in any way. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag needed A.S.A.P.

I saw this article mentioned on a user talk page so I came and checked it out. Much of it reads like a hit piece. A lot of clean up is needed. I realize Bachman is controversial, but our sourcing and NPOV standards still need to be met. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a tag is meaningless unless you have specific and actionable content policy issues related to this article. As the guidelines for the tag state, "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• "She defeated her Democratic challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg, in the 2008 election in a race that had gained national attention following her controversial televised call for the media to investigate members of Congress for perceived anti-American bias, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama" is undue weight for the opening paragraphs
• The bits about the education dispute are cherry picked and written in a way that's point and not encyclopedic
• The paragraph about Dobson "trying to engineer a victory" is also undue weight and needs to be condensed into what's actually relevant (if any of it. This isn't an article on Dobson. He supports conservatives, she's conservative. We get it. A mention at most).
• The part sourced to a 28 minute debate isn't appropriate unless proper sourcing can be found.
• etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight: Attempts at clean-up are promptly reverted by ideologically driven users. So don't invest much time in trying to insert balance here; it will most likely be stricken.Crackenstein (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)