Talk:Michele Bachmann 2012 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaffes[edit]

She's got that John Wayne Gacy spirit, eh? 173.77.240.251 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added that --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 21:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For real? Can't wait until the election is over so the nonsense will slow. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I almost reverted myself, but it looks like Bachmann is now saying the John Wayne's, the duke's that is, folks lived in Waterloo? Should we include that "rebuttal" as well. How really notable is this and are we going to keep a run tab of all her gaffes going forwad? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we can't keep this on here. We didn't have a running tally of gaffes for Obama or Biden. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, we didn't have any "running tally". ¶ However, Biden in particular was known (and ridiculed) for his gaffes, and the article on his presidential campaign has a summary of these, and rightly so. (By contrast, Obama was known for being unflappable and virtually gaffe-free.) Bachmann is known for her gaffes, and therefore it is right that this article has a section on them. The section does not and should not have a "running tally" of these gaffes. It notes how she is known for gaffes, and briefly describes those that were particularly newsworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like flawed logic. Obama, though percieved to be gaffe-free, has made a multitude of gaffes, 57 states, corpseman, age of his daughter, when his birthday is, bowling special olympics, calling Sunrise florida sunsine. I think it is clear why this section is here. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say that during his campaign Obama "was known for being [...] virtually gaffe-free". You say that "though percieved to be gaffe-free, [he] has made a multitude of gaffes". Well, were they made during his campaign, and how were they perceived? If they became newsworthy, then bring up the matter on the relevant talk page. Meanwhile, Biden did newsworthily make gaffes and these are written up. ¶ Incidentally, I haven't heard of any but one (57 states) of the gaffes that you mention. Could it be that this is because they are trivial? -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is more trivial, that Bachmann messed up John Wayne or that Obama messed up which medal of honor recipient was alive? Arzel (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and it doesn't matter what I (or you) think. I hadn't heard that Obama had made this mistake. If he indeed made it, and if it caused wide consternation or amusement or both (as evidenced in mass media of note), then have it put into the relevant article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bachmann's heavies[edit]

In this edit, and with the comment NPOV Give me a break, Arzel removed:

The next day, a reporter from ABC was accosted by Bachmann campaign staff while attempting to ask her a question regarding her headaches.<ref>Michael Crowley, "[http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/19/reporter-accosted-after-bachmann-comments-on-migraines/#ixzz1Sa8f5Qud Reporter Accosted After Bachmann Comments on Migraines]", time.com, July 19, 2011.</ref><ref>Greg Sargent, "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/michele-bachmanns-handlers-rough-up-reporter/2011/03/03/gIQA1cFKOI_blog.html Michele Bachmann’s handlers get rough with reporter]", washingtonpost.com, July 19, 2011.</ref>

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)[reply]

No need for you to be uncivil about my spelling mistake. This recent event is a perfect example of the media's willingness to jump on the right and ignore pretty much everything Obama says. I am actually quite suprised that you had not heard about the medal of honor gaffe but then it only got about 177 news hits. Where as the Bachmann migraine smear has recieved over 500 news hits. That there is a left media bias has been known for some time, that it is so unbelivabely obvious right now is simply quite astounding. Arzel (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's uncivil to simply mention that someone has misspelled a word.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What with the power of News Corp., the drift of WashPo to the right, etc, I'm surprised to read of a "left media bias". Still, thank you for the link to the Telegraph. Yes, this piece it makes a big thing of this gaffe. It ends by demanding an apology, and immediately follows this up by saying that an apology was given. You may wish to attempt to have it added to some article, though to me it seems unremarkable: Obama shouldn't have mixed up two names, but he did; he then promptly apologized for it. The media don't ignore what Obama says; for example I remember how they seemed delighted by the way he'd called some singer a "jackass". As for the "Bachmann migraine smear", I see no smear; there was no innuendo but a straightforward allegation, and Bachmann's son (or one of them) has responded that she does suffer from migraines. (Incidentally, I sympathize with Bachmann as I've had a mild one all today myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The PEW 2009 study has shown without a shadow of a doubt that most media is left biased. I would imagine you have read the study since most on the left trumpet it since it showed FNC to be biased right. Members of the media are overwhelmingly more likey to be democrat, none of that is debatable. But the real difference here is that I don't have a desire to insert these types of minor non-notable events into BLP's of either side, however those on the left seem to think that these events on the right are notable, while those on the left are not. That Obama doesn't know how to pronounce the word Corpsman (not corpseman) will never be in his article even though as commander of the military and he should know. That Bachmann got the Waynes mixed up will never be forgotten. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with "the PEW 2009 study". The last time I looked, Democrats outnumbered Republicans among reporters and people at a similar level in US news organizations, but Republicans outnumbered Democrats higher up. Mispronunciations and similar slips of the tongue are common for most speakers of English, and as Mark Liberman repeatedly pointed out, "Bushisms" are unremarkable and uninteresting (particularly silly were charges of "Bushisms" for entirely idiomatic and comprehensible English). While I'm not at all sure that people won't fairly soon forget that Bachmann mixed up her John Waynes, I'm not surprised that it was widely publicized: if any candidate for prez says something that can be presented as praise (however inadvertent) for a serial murderer, the fourth estate will lap it up. It's written up soberly in some newspapers (here in the Washington Times) and even unenthusiastically (here in WashPo), but anyway it's written up. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've heard as well. While many reporters do tend to lean Democratic, higher-ups -- and, significantly, advertisers -- tend to be Republicans. Also, most reporters are primarily socially liberal, like many people who work in television and the arts (for instance, they're more likely to know members of the LGBT community). However, they tend to be fairly economically moderate or even conservative. The last time I looked almost everyone in the news media tended to favor free trade agreements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.196.181 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ross "accosted"[edit]

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.)

  1. 15:16, 20 July 2011: Seleucus adds the material about this
  2. 16:24, 20 July 2011: Arzel removes it (and more), with the edit summary "WP:BLPGOSSIP WP:RECENT WP:NPOV"
  3. 21:44, 21 July 2011: Gamaliel readds it, with the edit summary "Undid revision 440504281 by Arzel (talk) the Ross incident has recieved a lot of coverage, don't see a reason to exclude it"
  4. 23:45, 21 July 2011: Arzel reverts, with the edit summary "Undid revision 440727152 by Gamaliel (talk)WP:BLPGOSSIP Contentious information relying on anonymous sources."
  5. 23:57, 21 July 2011: Gamaliel readds it, with the edit summary "tweaked to remove daily caller; restored ross incident - no stated reason for removal"
  6. 00:06, 22 July 2011: Arzel removes it all, with the edit summary "I had stated the reason for removing this earlier. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT WP:RECENT Lets not make a mountain out of a molehill."
  7. 13:46, 22 July 2011: Gamaliel readds it, with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 440744684 by Gamaliel: widely discussed, well-sourced."
  8. 14:08, 22 July 2011: NYyankees51 removes it, with the edit summary "Undid revision 440830232 by Gamaliel (talk) WP:UNDUE WP:NOTNEWS"
  9. 15:32, 22 July 2011: Hoary readds it in abridged form, with the edit summary "reinstating the dubiously deleted bit about Ross being roughed up, but this time abridging it"
  10. 16:26, 22 July 2011: NYyankees51 removes it, with the edit summary "consensus on talk was to remove it"

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)[reply]

Sorry, I was confused with another article where there was a straw poll on something. (It was 104 degrees here in DC today, it got to me!) I tried to do a blank edit to explain it, but I guess I did it wrong and it didn't save. But, I still think it should be removed. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And an update, or rather two updates:

  • 23 July 2011 Mojoworker Undid revision 440851529 by NYyankees51 NYyankees51was admittedly mistaken — no such consensus on the talk page
  • 23 July 2011 Arzel Undid revision 440923906 by Mojoworker WP:UNDUEWEIGHT WP:RECENT WP:NOTNEWS this story is already done. Take it to talk.

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)[reply]

WP is not a newspaper. This was in the newscycle for about a day and a half and will be all but forgotten a week from now. Recent events that have no long standing importance simply load down the article with events receiving undue attention. This particular issue creates a violation of neutral point of view. The only important aspect is her health, this minor controversy exceeds in prominence the aspect to which it even became an issue. 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. 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. Also, some of the reasons given for removal above dealt with two seperate issues. This information was added additionally with gossip, and I do not apply that policy to this issue. I would ask what makes this incident worthy of inclusion such that it does not violate WP:UNDUE? Furthermore, there little evidence which would imply that Bachmann had any control over the incident. Things like this happen alot with high profile individuals like Bill Belichick were he pushed a cameraman, but this had no lasting effect. Sean Penn had an incident where a photographer had his memory card taken while at Chris Penn's funeral, yet the incident is not mentioned in either bio. So....lets not make a mountain out of a molehill here. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

You will notice that the primary includer has not participated in any discussion, and made a false accusation that no reason was given for the removal. That many different sites repeated it doesn't change that it was a recent event with little if any long standing value. I provided two example, (the first two I checked for that matter) where a similar event had no longstanding value. The Belichick issue was vastly more notable in the context of the issue by which it occured. The event occured in relation to the sideline cheating incident of the New England Patriots which drew immense coverage. It is also an interesting test case as there is no political left/right aspects. If anthing the Patriots and Belichick are extremely dispised by a large diverse group. If any incident would have had a mention it would have been this one. As for the first argument I wasn't specifically referring to editors; the incidence itself appears to be reported by many news sources for purely political purposes, much like the migraine issue itself, and WP should not play a part in political gamesmenship. This article is likely to recieve a great deal of attention over the next few months, and we as editors should work hard to prevent it from being little more than an attack page with a collection of percieved and/or minor controversies. Arzel (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, give people a little time to participate in discussions. (And which false accusation was this, exactly?) ¶ I'm sorry, I understand no more about spectator sports than I do about, say, ballet dancing. I lack the stamina to read through 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy but I take your word for it that there's no mention of it there. Maybe if there were an article on Bill Belichick in the 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy (which I am not suggesting), it would be in that. ¶ the incidence itself appears to be reported by many news sources for purely political purposes Well, very likely; but you can with just as much or little justification say the same for an enormous amount of material, and I have trouble believing that Business Week, say, would reproduce this for such purposes. ¶ You certainly have a point about avoiding an attack page or the appearance of one. ¶ Maybe Bachmann will make a major policy speech or be in the news for some other positive reason, which can then be written up here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit - 23:57, 21 July 2011: Gamaliel readds it, with the edit summary "tweaked to remove daily caller; restored ross incident - no stated reason for removal" Reasons for removal had been clearly stated within the edits, he may not have agreed with them, but to state that they did not exist is pretty disingenious. Plus he has still not participated. His new edit is a perfect example of my earlier points. It is now a She said/He said, only now it is a simple statement from Bachmann's camp countered with hyperbolic sensationalistic statements on the other side.
Given the current media fasination of all things Bachmann, I am not suprised that everything Bachmann will get repeated in order to drive web hits, but it doens't mean that it has any lasting impact. Here is a nice little analysis of how quickly that morphed into anonymous allegations about the effect and treatment of her migraines to a story about her aides "roughing up" Ross. Along with a nice little link to the ladies from "The View" (most of whom have shown their extreme dislike of the right) now demanding how much and what kind of medication she is taking. I certainly don't remember the media jumping on Obama during his campaign to release his medical records, and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 doesn't mention his health at all, or his delay in releasing any info, or that he only released a summary. Arzel (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say what will and won't have lasting impact. ¶ What morphed into anonymous allegations about migraines? (I thought the allegations were the start.) ¶ My memory is dim, but I don't remember any allegations that Obama was even occasionally debilitated by anything; why would you expect the media to jump on him (or Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Kerry, Gore, etc) to release medical records? ¶ On "hyperbolic sensationalistic statements", etc, is it possible that you are indulging in just a little hyperbole (or anyway non-neutrality) in descriptions such as this? ¶ I'll try again to interest Gamaliel in dropping by. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was not quite clear. The story was the initial allegations that her migraines where severely deliberating and morphed into demands regarding what medication she is using, how many votes she missed because of them and the Ross incident (which he also said at the view was not that big of a deal). The allegations spread like wildfire into some huge non-controversy. Perhaps because I have worked in health care I am a little more sensitive to patient privacy regulations than most. As for Obama I mearly mean to state that there is/was a double standard. He was/is a smoker (not that I have a problem with it) but his treatment in the press vis-a-vis his medical records were far more muted, and he has largely refused to release any medical records. I'll be off for most of the day, and will wait to see what other discussion transpires.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs)
You seem to be nursing a small grudge regarding my edit summary here, where I mentioned that you did not state a removal regarding the Ross material in the previous edit summary, which you did not. In your next edit summary you clarified that you "had stated the reason for removing this earlier". So when you cleared that up, I considered the matter closed. Don't know why you keep beating that drum here, but if you feel the need, I publicly acknowledge that you did indeed state a reason for removal, just not on the particular edit I was referring to. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

submissive[edit]

I've started a stub for Michele Bachmann submissive controversy.Smallman12q (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please delete this POV fork. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Straw Poll[edit]

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)[reply]

Rumors are almost never allowed in BLP's. Do you have any RS's that are talking about this or is it just rumor? I have not heard of this until just now. Arzel (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the Ames Straw poll is that every candidate gives out things to people who vote for them. If so, this would be standard operating procedure.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Intended as background, not a reliable source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/making-hay-at-the-ames-straw-poll/2011/08/05/gIQAP8oFxI_story.html Fat&Happy (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading that it is hard to believe they even give the results an iota of value. Arzel (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More background: pork in 1999. This Iowa straw poll jamboree seems to have roots in the eighteenth century. (But it has brought us the Rick Parry campaign.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the (non?) story, "Posted by Paul Krugman on August 14th, 2011". No, I don't think this is the Paul Krugman that you and I are thinking of: this is instead a website that regards the Federal Reserve Bank as evil and whose lead stories (seemingly all by "Paul Krugman") include "Gun Rights Would Have Stopped London’s Socialist Rioters". (Quite how the rioters were socialist eludes me, but my mind is inadequate to the subtleties of certain strands of American Thought.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gafflets and microgaffes[edit]

Latest addition:

While campaigning in South Carolina on August 16, 2011, she erroneously wished Elvis Presley a happy birthday. August 16th, 2011, was the 34th anniversary of Presley's death, not his birthday.

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)[reply]

This doesn't seem worth mentioning - I don't know why the news services have even picked it up.   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been paying attention to the news then. President Obama confuses which Medal of Honor is still alive and is all but ignored. Bachmann mixes up Elvis birth/death and it has over 1,500 news articles in a day. I've removed per WP:NOTNEWS Arzel (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The burning question of our day (perhaps): Is the fourth estate more interested in dead crooners than in live Medal of Honor winners, or does it think that its customers are more interested? (But please let's not address this smoldering question here.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...Or is it more interested in who made the statement? Arzel (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek[edit]

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)[reply]

I personally didn't see the submissive controversy as a big deal. I didn't understand how people would say a woman who was a congresswoman, established careerwoman, and now a strong political candidate for the white house could suddenly be seen as "subservient" or enslaved by her husband. But she had to respond to those types of charges repeatedly. The controversy even got its own page for a while, before editors came to their senses. The point is, I see where you are coming from and my goal is not to blow this up. But please remember, if you check out John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, you will see numerous examples of the negative media attention he received. There were even studies on the percent of negative articles on him during the race. I think it's good to know, and it helps me understand the campaign. But if I was reading an article on Newsweek, why would I find its article on Michele Bachmann relevant? The media attention is on Bachmann, not the publication. She had to respond, and Palin responded as well. Her presidential campaign, which is ongoing, is being affected by the media. It's not her presidential campaign that will make or break Newsweek and redefine that magazine and its image.--Screwball23 talk 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with House re-election plans[edit]

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)[reply]


Updated senior staff information[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks for leaving this note. However, since this is an encyclopedia rather than an almanac, it would probably be better to mark the former staff as "former staff" rather than deleting their names.   Will Beback  talk  17:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Iowa endorsements[edit]

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)[reply]

Endorsment after removal[edit]

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)[reply]


She endorsed Ron Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.40.125 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these links is 'excluded' from the archive and now marked as dead. —ADavidB 04:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michele_Bachmann_2012_presidential_campaign&oldid=1209038589"