Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 18 October 2006

Biography NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Activepol

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

I concurr with quantumstream. Still needs fixing.

Like what stance? They are all pretty well established, even if some of them still need specific references.

Her political stances are established albeit extreme. ~~

This article may seem bias, but if you were to read any and all articles regarding her stance and what she actually does/has done, it's pretty accurate.

LRT claims

Her LRT claims are common knowledge, because she used to go on talk radio constantly and talk it up. Her exact quotes are hidden behind pay newspaper articles at this point, except for the referenced paraphrasing. Why are you people so afraid of her stated opinions on light rail?

As far as the POV nonsense

• it is a matter of record, not POV, that LRT has been successful in the Twin Cities.
• it is a matter of relevant fact that Bachmann is raising most her money outside the 6th district

Again, why is there an effort to suppress this factual information?

The reference to the Daily Planet article is not a reliable source. The author is an editor on dumpbachmann, and the publication itself is suspect as a source (it bills itself as more of a community forum than a newspaper).

"Successful" is subjective in this case. Considered successful by whom? Are you saying that it's a universally agreed-upon fact that the light rail line is a success? Such a statement requires a source.

As for Bachmann's stance on LRT, we need a reliable source on this. I searched and could find no quote on LRT from Bachmann. But if you can find a quote from her or an article about her LRT stance, then please reference it. For now, I'm removing it because it is unsupported. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant; all that matters is whether it's verifiable from reliable sources. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

a) The source is reliable. You just don't like the author. b) LRT is universally considered successful in the Twin Cities. If it is not, it should be easy for you to cite a counter example. It would be impossible to prove universality.

a) It is not reliable. The author is an active editor on the dumpbachmann blog, and it's basically an opinion piece he wrote and published in an online newspaper that describes itself as "an experiment in participatory journalism". Not exactly the New York Times here. And my past disputes with this author are irrelevant to the question of reliability of the source - and this author is unquestionably a staunch political opponent of Bachmann. We wouldn't reference Karl Rove in an article about Hillary Clinton, and we shouldn't reference this dumpbachmann contributor in an article about Bachmann.

b) "Successful" is an inherently subjective and ambiguous term. What are the criteria for success? Who considers it a success? By what standard? I'm not disputing that you and many others in Minneapolis consider it a success, but that doesn't make it an objective, verifiable truth. It's a POV, plain and simple.

I'm not going to revert, because I don't want to get into a war here. But I stand by my edits. A Transportation Enthusiast 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at two areas of debate at the moment:

1. Whether the success of Twin-Cities light rail should be in the article
2. Whether PRT is unproven or experimental

On case 1, Twin-Cities light rail may or may not be successful, but it is certainly not obvious or a U.S. senator would not be saying it is unsuccessful. So a citation is needed, from an independent source. We can have points of view (POVs), but if they are disputed, a reputable source must be found. The onus is on the person wanting to add the POV to find a reliable source. For this reason I have taken out this word, though a tag could be used instead, in which case if a cite is not found, the word will probably be removed anyway. A source would also clarify what success actually means in this case too - this is not obvious to a new reader of the article. Stephen B Streater 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On case 2, PRT is commercially unproven as the in-practice costs and usage figures are not known, but experiments have shown it is technically possible. Several systems are being made commercially, and when these are up and running, both these terms (unproven and experimental) will need review. Stephen B Streater 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

1. No US Senator or anyone else is claiming it is not successful. The success is not disputed. Her opposition and criticisms were prior to the advent of light rail.

The onus is on you to find a cite as it is a subjective view. Misplaced Pages prefers verifiability to truth. Stephen B Streater 13:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've re-worded the paragraph so that it is more clear that she preferred PRT to LRT prior to construction; the previous version did not make this clear. I've also retained the "success" line now that we have a reliable source, and removed the reference to the op-ed piece written by a political foe. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - this section looks much better supported now. Stephen B Streater 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PRT

I think it is relevant to her as a politician that she is pushing something that is highly speculative in its viability. I honestly don't know enough to personally have a position on PRT, but I do question the judgment of someone who would push it as an alternative to LRT for specifically the kind of problem the Twin Cities were trying to solve.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xinconnu (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 September 2006.

The point is, you are making a judgement on PRT and extrapolating it out to a judgement on Bachmann. I agree with Captainktainer on this: let the user make the judgement. ATren 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. PRT is objectively unproven. I am making no judgments whatsoever on PRT itself. It is unproven. And the fact that she would pursue an unproven technology is relevant, but in itself is neither positive nor negative. Xinconnu 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could go either way on this. I just feel that by including the fact that it is commercially unproven (certainly not technologically unproven - much research and several fully-functioning prototypes have demonstrated technological feasibility), it sounds like we're trying to make a point rather than state a point. She supports PRT over LRT, that's her position - to say more sounds like campaigning to me. Let the reader decide. ATren 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that her judgement is impaired. In fact, I place her squarely on the "a few bats short" segment of the belfry metric. She doesn't deserve to be in a position of power for a whole host of reasons. Nevertheless, this isn't an article about PRT. It's an article about Michelle Bachmann. Wikipedians, on the whole, are smart, or at least we should assume they are. Assuming that PRT is truly a whacko idea, reading the PRT article will let them figure it out for themselves. In the meantime, we don't need to comment on its impracticality. What could really use work is the PRT article. It is painfully pro-PRT, blatantly violating NPOV standards. Captainktainer * Talk 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Painfully pro-PRT? Nonsense. That article was battled over for 6 months until a general consensus was reached. User:JzG was very much a skeptical force in that debate, as was User:Stephen B Streater, and they seem OK with the article now. There's no basis for your pro-PRT assertion.

Captainktainer is referring to the article on PRT

Yes, I know, that's what I was referring to too. Take a look at the PRT history and you'll see how familiar I am with that article. :-) ATren 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are otherwise reasonable people so rabidly against reporting details about this technology? The article states facts that are scientifically indisputable and well supported in reliable sources (books, journals, even prototypes). The article also clearly (and repeatedly) states the concerns about commercial application. What's the problem? You'd think we were talking about intelligent design here, not a thoroughly-developed, well-understood, scientifically sound transportation concept. ATren 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Statement: "Some of Bachmann's local critics charge that she could be more accurately described as a Christian fundamentalist political candidate."

To the person or persons who keep removing or changing the following sentence from Senator Bachmann’s Misplaced Pages entry: “Some of Bachmann's local critics charge that she could be more accurately described as a Christian fundamentalist political candidate.”

As of today, September 15th, 2006, you have removed or amended this statement several times. Whenever you removed it entirely from the article, I replaced it.

I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise statement, but the statement you have substituted is actually less accurate than the original. Local critics of Bachmann have not charged “that she is a candidate more aligned with Christian fundamentalist ideology.” Local critics have indeed charged that she is a “Christian fundamentalist” politician—a politician pursuing a Christian fundamentalist agenda.

For the definition of Christian fundamentalist, see the Misplaced Pages entry on that topic and note the section of the entry entitled “Christian Right (USA)”. (It happens that this entry on Christian fundamentalism references Dr. James Dobson’s Family Research Council. Senator Bachmann is acquainted with Dr. Dobson and until recently a photograph of the Senator with Dr. Dobson was posted on her website. The Senator notes that Focus on the Family, Dobson’s popular radio broadcast organization, provided her with the materials for her public presentation on “The Effects of Gay Marriage On Education.”)

This charge--that she is actually a Christian fundamentalist politician--is so well known to people following Bachmann’s career in Stillwater that I did not feel that it needed citation. The links between Senator Bachmann and Christian fundamentalist political movement are well documented in the Wiki entry. Nevertheless, when you began removing the statement, I added citations to show that the original statement is true. The citations provided show that local critics have indeed claimed that Senator Bachmann is a Christian fundamentalist politic candidate and politician.

If you present convincing evidence for the following proposition: “Local critics have NOT charged that Senator Bachmann is not a Christian fundamentalist politician”-- I will agree to remove or change the statement. Until such evidence is presented here on the Talk page, I will keep putting the original statement back in the entry, where it belongs. Please do not “scrub” this entry to remove or amend this statement because you disagree with it. The original statement is accurate and a fair representation of what some local critics claim about Bachmann; the underlying facts are documented and sourced.

Wait, I thought you liberal Christ-haters were telling us that President Bush was just USING Christians to get votes. Now you're insisting...fighting about it in fact, that Christians are actually being encouraged to run for office and spread their ideology.

Which is it, liberals?

Who Says That the Hiawatha LRT is Unsuccessful?

To find out, read this blog article and the commentsAvidor 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That link is to his own anti-Bachmann blog, where he insinuates that "PRTistas" (his name for anyone who mentions PRT) are calling Hiawatha unsuccessful, even though the editor who made that edit (Sparbass) is new here and has never edited the PRT article. In fact, Sparbass changed his edit to "success" here, which leads me to believe that Sparbass might be a strawman sock puppet created by @vidor to trigger this fake controversy. (I don't use @vidor's real name here because he has objected to his name being used on Misplaced Pages, because he was a "retired" user then. So I don't spell out his full name on Misplaced Pages). ATren 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't play tennis for Saint Scholastica and I don't contribute to the Republican Party. I am not related to anyone who lives in North Oaks and donates money to Republicans. I am not related to anyone who works on Mark Kennedy's campaign. Does that answer your question? If you have any complaints, ATE/A-Tren, why don't you bring them up with an administrator?.... oh, I forgot... you don't get along with administrators... here's a good example: Avidor 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And if Sparbass is a Hiawatha-hating "PRTista", then why did he later make this edit supporting your view? You're the one who started this with your inflammatory blog entry blaming the edits on "wacky PRTistas". Next time, maybe you should think twice about making exaggerated and unsubstantiated accusations on your blog. When you pull a stunt like that, your motives and tactics will be questioned, especially given that you have a long history of deceptive sock puppetry outside of Misplaced Pages, and you have even stated publicly that such behavior is no big deal.

But I am not going to get into another irrelevant talk page war with you. The article as it stands states verifiable fact without POV. I consider the matter closed.

I totally have no clue what the above stuff relates to. The fact is, Hiawatha is wildly successful and I have never seen a critique of it other than Bachmann's stupid claim that half the riders are freeloading. Having said that, the only specific quote I found on the net is one that specifically states "early success". In reality "early success" is successful, since it has only been in place a couple of years. Xinconnu 23:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Two sources: If that's not good enough, you can call up the Met Council or Hennepin County and ask them .Avidor 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually said I knew of no one anywhere who thinks it is not a wild success. Xinconnu 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Eligibility to Practice Law in Minnesota

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.

Quotes

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

I think they are good evidence of positions that would otherwise come across as lacking an NPOV Xinconnu 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, there are smart quotes all over the place. Gross. --Marumari 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice SMEAR Job Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• NA-Class biography pages