This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michele Bachmann 2012 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Michele Bachmann submissive controversy was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Michele Bachmann 2012 presidential campaign. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
She's got that John Wayne Gacy spirit, eh? 173.77.240.251 ( talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, and with the comment NPOV Give me a break, Arzel removed:
I don't understand what's NPOVish about this. This WaPo piece suggests that Bachmann's handlers quite unnecessarily roughed up a reporter; "accosted" seems an extraordinarily mild way to phrase this (though it is indeed used in the title of the time.com article).
Arzel continued to " Remove anoynmous allegations", removing a source that seems carefully written and is not sensationalist (and incidentally misspelling "migraine"). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Reminder to editors not to add WP:BLPGOSSIP into a BLP. That Politico's verifies that the Daily Caller said that anonymous sources said something does not make the gossip any less gossipy. Arzel ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Material about a journalist being "accosted" (or jostled, or whatever), has come and gone in a way that's wasteful at best. Here's a slightly simplified edit history. (I omit minor edits. Summaries are shorn of links. This list required a lot of copying and pasting so there may be the occasional slip.)
Thus the reasons given for removing it (or something else) have been:
Among these, WP:BLPGOSSIP seems to refer to other material. ¶ WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT would certainly seem to apply, but bearing in mind that the subject of the article is only a month or so old, the article (if it's worth retention at all) seems to require a perspective that's unusual for WP as a whole. ¶ WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE (or molehill overestimation) may apply, it may not: let's see one or the other argued here, not merely declared. (I'd suggest the contrary, that as this is occurred in a nation priding itself on press freedom -- rather than, say, Belarus -- it's rather remarkable. Certainly the cited writers say that it was unusual by US standards.) ¶ However, as for "consensus on talk was to remove it", I'm completely baffled. Exactly where was this consensus expressed? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
And an update, or rather two updates:
Arzel, I don't know what you mean by "done", but I already did "take it to talk": see the above. Now it's your turn to explain, persuasively. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You bring up various objections. First, however:
There are many reasons why this should not be included, the only reason I can see for inclusion is for political purposes in order to try and marginalize Bachmann. / I too often speculate about editors' motives. But other than in extraordinary circumstances I keep the speculations to myself. I suggest that you do too. If there really are many reasons why this should not be included, then motivation won't be an issue.
Right then. . . .
Recent events that have no long standing importance simply load down the article with events receiving undue attention. / Well, this is arguable.
This particular issue creates a violation of neutral point of view. / I don't see how it does, if it's presented concisely and soberly.
It is difficult to even put the event into context without excessive weight of he said she said with an end result of not having any lasting value. / You've lost me. Ross made a claim, two people backed him up. I'm very willing to believe that somebody said Ross was wrong, but I haven't noticed such claims yet.
Furthermore, there little evidence which would imply that Bachmann had any control over the incident. / Yes, you are probably right here.
Things like this happen alot with high profile individuals [...] / They do indeed, but actors act and sports club managers (was it?) manage; neither is overtly involved in a multistage popularity contest or is likely to be so very worried about PR.
lets not make a mountain out of a molehill here / Indeed. But the story could be more than a molehill; after all, such staid websites as Business Week wrote it up (or at least reproduced others' write-ups).
You'll note that I didn't add the material. Once it was added, I did once readd it, but in doing so I trimmed it quite a bit. Maybe I trimmed it too much, maybe not enough. But you've removed the whole thing four times. Conceivably it's all better removed, but an attempt at discussion and agreement would be healthier. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I've started a stub for Michele Bachmann submissive controversy. Smallman12q ( talk) 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There are allegations going around that Bachmann skewed the Iowa straw poll by having a free Kenny Chesney concert that was only accessible by those who had voted for her. Do you think that it noteworthy enough to include in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.250.122 ( talk) 23:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Latest addition:
Sourced to HuffPo. But it could be sourced to the NYT for all I'd care. For intercourse's sake, this is boring stuff, nano-potatoes. (I quayle at the thought of misspelling the latter.) Birth, death: nobody's blue suede shoes got trodden on; she didn't talk about imaginary Nobel-winning scientists or similar -- calling this a "gaffe" gives "gaffe" a bad name. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it necessary to mention the Newsweek cover? This appears to be a bigger deal to Newsweek than Bachmann's cmapaign. Truthsort ( talk) 22:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the date per Minnesota law that she is ineligible for re-election to the House if she is an active Presidential candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.190.1 ( talk) 20:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the page lists David Polyansky as the campaign's deputy manager; however, he is no longer on the campaign staff. Source links: [1], [2]. I have deleted his name and title from the list of key people on the article.
Note: Michele Bachmann is a client of my employer (see my user page), but per WP:COI, I think it is appropriate for me to make this update. I welcome the community's advice for improving future edits and discussion posts. CS Katie ( talk) 18:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
She recently announced new endorsements from Iowa. Who were they so we can fit them on the endorsements? J390 ( talk) 18:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
When will she finally endorse someone. Shes been out for almost a month and yet no endorsement. Who gets her delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 ( talk) 08:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
She endorsed Ron Paul. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.217.40.125 (
talk)
21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/07/19/bachmann-migraines-wont-impede-white-house-goals/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michele Bachmann 2012 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Michele Bachmann submissive controversy was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Michele Bachmann 2012 presidential campaign. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
She's got that John Wayne Gacy spirit, eh? 173.77.240.251 ( talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, and with the comment NPOV Give me a break, Arzel removed:
I don't understand what's NPOVish about this. This WaPo piece suggests that Bachmann's handlers quite unnecessarily roughed up a reporter; "accosted" seems an extraordinarily mild way to phrase this (though it is indeed used in the title of the time.com article).
Arzel continued to " Remove anoynmous allegations", removing a source that seems carefully written and is not sensationalist (and incidentally misspelling "migraine"). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Reminder to editors not to add WP:BLPGOSSIP into a BLP. That Politico's verifies that the Daily Caller said that anonymous sources said something does not make the gossip any less gossipy. Arzel ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Material about a journalist being "accosted" (or jostled, or whatever), has come and gone in a way that's wasteful at best. Here's a slightly simplified edit history. (I omit minor edits. Summaries are shorn of links. This list required a lot of copying and pasting so there may be the occasional slip.)
Thus the reasons given for removing it (or something else) have been:
Among these, WP:BLPGOSSIP seems to refer to other material. ¶ WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT would certainly seem to apply, but bearing in mind that the subject of the article is only a month or so old, the article (if it's worth retention at all) seems to require a perspective that's unusual for WP as a whole. ¶ WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE (or molehill overestimation) may apply, it may not: let's see one or the other argued here, not merely declared. (I'd suggest the contrary, that as this is occurred in a nation priding itself on press freedom -- rather than, say, Belarus -- it's rather remarkable. Certainly the cited writers say that it was unusual by US standards.) ¶ However, as for "consensus on talk was to remove it", I'm completely baffled. Exactly where was this consensus expressed? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
And an update, or rather two updates:
Arzel, I don't know what you mean by "done", but I already did "take it to talk": see the above. Now it's your turn to explain, persuasively. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You bring up various objections. First, however:
There are many reasons why this should not be included, the only reason I can see for inclusion is for political purposes in order to try and marginalize Bachmann. / I too often speculate about editors' motives. But other than in extraordinary circumstances I keep the speculations to myself. I suggest that you do too. If there really are many reasons why this should not be included, then motivation won't be an issue.
Right then. . . .
Recent events that have no long standing importance simply load down the article with events receiving undue attention. / Well, this is arguable.
This particular issue creates a violation of neutral point of view. / I don't see how it does, if it's presented concisely and soberly.
It is difficult to even put the event into context without excessive weight of he said she said with an end result of not having any lasting value. / You've lost me. Ross made a claim, two people backed him up. I'm very willing to believe that somebody said Ross was wrong, but I haven't noticed such claims yet.
Furthermore, there little evidence which would imply that Bachmann had any control over the incident. / Yes, you are probably right here.
Things like this happen alot with high profile individuals [...] / They do indeed, but actors act and sports club managers (was it?) manage; neither is overtly involved in a multistage popularity contest or is likely to be so very worried about PR.
lets not make a mountain out of a molehill here / Indeed. But the story could be more than a molehill; after all, such staid websites as Business Week wrote it up (or at least reproduced others' write-ups).
You'll note that I didn't add the material. Once it was added, I did once readd it, but in doing so I trimmed it quite a bit. Maybe I trimmed it too much, maybe not enough. But you've removed the whole thing four times. Conceivably it's all better removed, but an attempt at discussion and agreement would be healthier. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I've started a stub for Michele Bachmann submissive controversy. Smallman12q ( talk) 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There are allegations going around that Bachmann skewed the Iowa straw poll by having a free Kenny Chesney concert that was only accessible by those who had voted for her. Do you think that it noteworthy enough to include in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.250.122 ( talk) 23:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Latest addition:
Sourced to HuffPo. But it could be sourced to the NYT for all I'd care. For intercourse's sake, this is boring stuff, nano-potatoes. (I quayle at the thought of misspelling the latter.) Birth, death: nobody's blue suede shoes got trodden on; she didn't talk about imaginary Nobel-winning scientists or similar -- calling this a "gaffe" gives "gaffe" a bad name. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it necessary to mention the Newsweek cover? This appears to be a bigger deal to Newsweek than Bachmann's cmapaign. Truthsort ( talk) 22:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the date per Minnesota law that she is ineligible for re-election to the House if she is an active Presidential candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.190.1 ( talk) 20:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the page lists David Polyansky as the campaign's deputy manager; however, he is no longer on the campaign staff. Source links: [1], [2]. I have deleted his name and title from the list of key people on the article.
Note: Michele Bachmann is a client of my employer (see my user page), but per WP:COI, I think it is appropriate for me to make this update. I welcome the community's advice for improving future edits and discussion posts. CS Katie ( talk) 18:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
She recently announced new endorsements from Iowa. Who were they so we can fit them on the endorsements? J390 ( talk) 18:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
When will she finally endorse someone. Shes been out for almost a month and yet no endorsement. Who gets her delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 ( talk) 08:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
She endorsed Ron Paul. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.217.40.125 (
talk)
21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/07/19/bachmann-migraines-wont-impede-white-house-goals/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)