Talk:Minnesota Family Council/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of a See also link

The Michele Bachmann see also link was removed twice by StAnselm for the following reasons: 1st time:" shouldn't be included without a strong connection and an explanation" 2nd time: "not when there is a negative connotations and living people are involved - if she made a donation, back it up with a reliable source"

Notably, these reverts started less than three house after the article was created, in spite of the {{under construction}} tag at thet op of the page. Setting aside the rather disruptive nature of these edits, I believe the reverts were done based on false premises.

The WP:ALSO guideline states "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."

My reasons for adding the link are:

1. Michele Bachmann is a former US Congressperson from Minnesota
2. Headline from a major source in this article: "In Michele Bachmann's home district, evangelicals have created an extreme anti-gay climate. After a rash of suicides, the kids are fighting back."
3. Michele Bachmann and her husband made contributions to the MFC (Sources have not yet been added. Again, the article is but hours old.)
4. Editorial discretion - I have read dozens of sources on the topic, and in my estimation, Michele Bachmann is very relevant link from this topic.
5. Common sense - This is an article about a topic that Michele Bachmann has been very visible on in the US Media.
6. WP:BLP does not prevent adding see also links to articles about Christian organizations which promote family values.
7. The article does not have negative connotations that would affect a living person simply because of a see also link.
8. WP:ALSO does not require a 'strong connection'; it does however suggest a that the article be related. It is.

So, I would like to understand why, of the places on Wikipedia in which to edit, StAnselm felt it was necessary to delete information from this particular article while it was under construction, starting just an hour an 13 minutes after it was created. This is particularly troubling in light of my previous entreaties to please not disrupt editing by repeatedly deleting content, categories and nominating articles themselves for deletion. – MrX 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Please don't take it personally - I got to the article from Parents Action League - and I removed the same see also link there, for a similar reason.
2. Be very mindful of WP:OWN - it is not your article, and Template:Under construction should not be used to encourage other editors to leave the article alone. "Editorial discretion" doesn't mean your discretion, it means our discretion.
3. I acknowledge that "negative connotations" was the wrong phrase - jumping here from Parents Action League made me link the two in my mind.
4. But I stand by my appeal of the BLP issue. WP:BLPREMOVE says Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced. The claim that Michele Bachmann is connected to the organization was completely unsourced, and was therefore removed immediately, and you erred greatly in adding it back in. It doesn't matter how old the article is - do not add unsourced claims about living people. StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please believe me, I'm not taking it personally, nor did I claim ownership implicitly or otherwise. I will let my record of collaborating with other editors stand on its own.

Could you please tell me exactly what unsourced or contentious claim I made about Michele Bachmann? This seems very much like a misinterpretation of the WP:BLP policy. If it really is so serious that you felt it necessary to delete the entry twice, I'm sure you can tell me about you specific reasons, because the policy you quoted above doesn't seem to do it.

You might also observe that I've already identified a source that links Michele Bachmann to the Minnesota Family Council. Further reading would reveal "Bachmann also is affiliated with the ultraright Minnesota Family Council, headlining a fundraiser for them last spring alongside Newt Gingrich" I also mentioned (above) that she held public office, representing Minnesota at national level.

She has also been very active in opposing same-sex marriage as a public official: "The increase in opposition to gay and lesbian legal unions is "phenomenal," said Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, who has been a leader in pushing to put the amendment on the state ballot." – MrX 02:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can find something that is relevant to the topic, you may add it to the article with a suitable reference. WP:BLPREMOVE means the source must be in the article, not merely that it exists. StAnselm (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See also links do not need to be sourced; that's not how they work. They work in the same way that wikilinks are used to link related content between different articles, to help readers expand their knowledge of related subjects. Nevertheless, source citation (#7) does include the relationship between the Minnesota Family Council and Michele Bachmann, in very clear terms. Again, the content does not actually have to be written into the article and WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply.

I urge you to reconsider your position, in light of this and the information previously provided. – MrX 02:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So - are you saying that there isn't enough of a connection for a statement to be inserted into the article? StAnselm (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, there are hundreds of articles to research. But, there is no doubt that it merits inclusion simply because of Michele Bachmann's links with MFC, and her notabilty of actively opposing same-sex marriage and civil unions in Minnesota. I don't think it takes a rocket surgeon to see the connection. – MrX 03:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)