Talk:Bart Stupak

U.S. Congress Start‑class Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Religious Affiliation

Perhaps it would be useful to include some info on his religious affiliation-he's a member of The Brotherhood which is a religious group that is active around the world. While staying in Washington he stays at a Brotherhood provided home. Some information is here: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.234.204 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually had a hard time tracking down his official denomination. Some sites suggest he is an Evangelical, others that he is a Catholic. I changed the "Religious Affiliation" to "Roman Catholic" on the basis of the comment here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGU0MmM3YTA3MTMzYzEwNWE2OTYzNjc3ODczZjdkZjY= The statement "Bart is a brother Knight" would have to mean that he's Catholic - only Catholics are eligible for membership in the Knights of Columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.47.139 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior Office Holder

Stupak suceeded Bob Davis, John Conyers is still in Congress. Why do people keep changing this? ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.175.252 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Robert Davis did not represent the 1st District. Conyers preceded Stupak as the representative of the 1st district. The boundaries for congressional districts were dramatically redrawn following the 1990 census, which deserves a note, but as far as succession by district Conyers preceded Stupak in the 1st district. older ≠ wiser 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that was added handles the issue. Do you even live in Michigan? John Conyers is still a Congressman representing the same (renumbered) district he's represented since the 60s. I'm changing it back to Robert Davis who was Bart Stupak's predecessor. If someone changes it to Conyers, I'm appealing it.mp2dtw (talk)

Appeal away. The boundaries for the 1st district were redrawn following the 1990 census. Before that redistricting, John Conyers represented Michigan's 1st district. Robert William Davis may have represented most of what is now the 1st district, but at the time he was serving it was the 11th district. older ≠ wiser 05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The explain to me how, if John Conyers was Bart Stupak's predecessor, John Conyers still represents the same district in Washington today. The first district was renamed as well, not simply redrawn. The old 11th district was the UP and northern lower Michigan. The old 1st district was northern & western Detroit plus a few suburbs. The new 1st is the UP and northern lower Michigan. The new 14th is northern & western Detroit plus a few suburbs. Your logic is faulty beyond belief. mp2dtw (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The current 1st congressional district was enlarged and renumbered after the 2000 census. It has always contained all of the counties in the Upper Peninsula and some counties in the northern most section of the lower peninsual. With the loss of a number of congressional seats after the census, several more counties were added to this district, which was formerly the 11th., and there was a state wide renumbeing. This geographic district (formerly the 11th was was renumbered the 1st.) was formerly held by Robert W. Davis (R) John Conyers never represented any part of this geographic area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.192.241 (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding his son's suicide

This is from the Accutane article:
U.S. Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) is known for his distrust of Accutane. He believes unadvertised psychological side effects from the drug drove his teenage son, Bartholomew Thomas "B.J" Stupak Jr., to commit suicide in 2000.
Maybe this should be incorporated here?
217.132.176.54 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Family"

The section on "The Family" doesn't have any mention or explanation of what kind of activities are taking place at the facility, or are alleged to be taking place, that Stupak claims he doesn't know about or isn't involved in. It's very puzzling in its current state. (I suspect those allegations may have been in the article at some point but were removed?) 24.126.115.61 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That section, imo, should be edited, cut down, or removed. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Boromir123's attempt to balance the edits I made last night. However, in doing so key facts have been lost. You deleted the fact that the Fellowship is a secretive organization. This is not controversial, and it is important. Fellowship member Bob Hunter stated to the press on national television: "But I do agree with you, that The Fellowship is too secret. We don‘t have a Web site. We don‘t have - we have a lot of good ministers, 200 ministers doing good works that nobody knows about. I think that‘s wrong, and there‘s a debate going on among a lot of people about whether and how we should change that." Rachel Maddow Show, Jan. 5 2010 See also facts described regarding secrecy in The Fellowship. There are a lot more inflammatory facts that could be mentioned about the organization than its secretiveness that I did not mention, such as its leaders praising of aspects of Hitler and other leaders/institutions like him (same cite). More to the point of the secretiveness of the organization, Stupak himself denied knowing anything about the Fellowship. This is important too. You deleted the fact that the Ohio VOICE challenged the tax status of the Fellowship on the grounds of, among others, the secrecy of the organization. In addition, Stupak introduced a controversial bill on a religious subject with another Fellowship member, which goes to his denial of knowledge or involvement with the organization. These facts are important, not subject to question, and need to go back in. To address your concern over NPOV, I will try to use a more neutral tone when I put these facts back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likesausages (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your level-headed and reasonable response.Boromir123 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you too for your input, which made the piece better - WP at its best.Likesausages (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill

I'm don't completely understand this article about the Uganda 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but I'm wondering if it should be included into Stupak's article, or if this source is more of an assumption? Anyone more knowledgeable about this? --Dan Leveille^TALK 01:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely needs to be included here. This is a huge deal! --Austin de Rossi (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the section claiming that Stupak supports the Uganda anti-homosexuality bill. The source cited provides no evidence that Stupak supports that bill. The source only shows that a member of the Family is responsible for the bill but does not provide evidence that the Family as an institution supports the bill. In any case, according to the rest of the article, Stupak's relationship with the Family is ambiguous and it does not make sense to assume that he supports every action of a Family member. If that sentence is going to stay in, I think a better source showing that Stupak actually supports the bill is needed. 192.245.194.254 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Governor's Race in MI

I can find no support for the statement that Bart Stupak will run for governor of Michigan in 2010. Unless someone can support this, it should be removed.Rpogge (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Template:citation needed is for :) --Dan Leveille^TALK 04:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare

Could someone with the appropriate permissions please fix the healthcare language which not only overtly political but also refers to 'today'?

I find the last few sentences of this section politically biased; in addition no references are cited. They also ignore the fact that A) before voting for the senate bill Stupak received assurances from Obama that an executive order would be used to quell his abortion fears, and B) That the Stupack Amendment offered up by republicans on March 21st was just a veiled parliamentary tactic designed to invalidate the just passed health-care reform bill at the last possible second.

Sorcerer2007 (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no kidding. The subjective remarks at the ends of some of the sections are tantamount to vandalism.alaroz33 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the necessary changes and the page has been semi-protected now with the user doing most of the damage warned. For the record I'm a Republican and not happy with his vote but trashing his page with nonsense is not appropriate. --Wgfinley (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wiggly, the guy is a career politician that did not serve in vietnam although he definately was of age and has flip flopped around on his positions. If you don't think taht stuff is true, you are blind. And as far as being a Catholic, LMAO, sure he is. and I am the easter bunny./ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGrunt (talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a career politician, he clearly had jobs as a police officer and as a lawyer as the article indicates. He graduated high school in 1970 and went to college, I'm sure his draft status reflected that. Whatever the case, pointing out he didn't serve when he could have been drafted is meaningless. If he had wheels he'd be a wagon too but I'm not putting that in the article. As far as his religious beliefs he has stated them, whether he follows them is not for you to decide by changing his listing. Like I said, I couldn't disagree more with the guy and the position he took but vandalizing his article out of frustration is not the proper venue to vent that frustration. Giving money to his opponent was for me. Oh, and sign your comments for pete sake though I had little trouble figuring it out. --Wgfinley (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove POV link

In the "Biography" section please remove the POV link in the word Accutane in the paragraph about Bart Jr.. It is highly inappropriate. --65.51.209.126 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]