Talk:John Stafford (US politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

"Stafford, a faithful returned Catholic, opposes abortion and slot machine casino gambling, inter alia, and therefore received no funding from the Republican Party because a majority of its current top leaders are pro-abortion and pro-slot machine gambling."

This strikes me as false, can we get some fact-checking done on this? - TheWama

[edit] POV-check

This article strikes me as one of the most partial I have come across on Wikipedia. Consider the following extracts (quotes in italics) from the latest revision at time of writing oldid=50830222:

• because of thr hard-Left and actively pro-abortion direction the Democrat top 'leaders' took in recent decades

"hard-left"??? That's not how many Democrtas would characterise their party's stance

• taking over $100 million in bribes and 'campaign contributions' from the "Murder, Inc." abortion business

bribes?? any evidence of this, is campaign funding from people you don't like a bribe

"Murder, Inc."??? That's not how the pro-abortion people (or heir millions of clients) view abortion clinics

• which has killed 46 million innocent unborn children since 1973

a neutral summary of the abortion debate?

• the mass-murderous Roe v. Wade

"mass murderous2???

• This is my favourite: (Reagan is the only President to write a book against abortion, a fact which was unappreciated by the grossly derelict in multiple ways US bishops of the Catholic Church. Unlike far too many of them, Stafford is a faithful Catholic Christian who actually believes the Bible and obeys God's laws.)

The Catholic bishops would take a very different view of that.

I have therfore reverted to the last good version, oldid=32246251 --BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting and cleaning up (Part 1)

Hi from a new Wiki. I am trying my hand at various tasks to get the hand of it. I attempted to clean up the page as per the suggestion on the clean up pages. I have given it a go. I put the existing content into sections and added what information I could source online, which frankly wasn’t much.

Most of the content is unsubstantiated by the original author and I could not find the biographical detail online to support it. However I don't feel confident deleting someone else's work totally. Also, there are abbreviations such as SGA that I don’t understand. I have fixed up the more obvious ones such as ‘Nam’. I will copy this into the discussion page. Hoipe that is all okay with you. Cheers.

Some of the other text such as “Cherry Pt. MCAS and NAVARA and the Navy JAG Investigations Division and TBS” is quite baffling to me. As well as some of the US political references. Hopefully my attempt at reformatting and some editing of the content is helpful for somebody else to pick up the next stage of fixing the article and verifying the content. I have added the useful sources I found. I could not find the case laws cited online. The original author links didn’t lead anywhere.

Not being an American, I couldn’t really understand much of it (and don't have any biad of my own here). However, I would expect a clear article to be clear to all readers, regardless of their location. With good links they should be able to inform themselves of anything in the article they are unfamiliar with. Hopefully (I’m new at this) I have the right end of the stick.

Still a lot of work needed - for someone with a bit more knowledge than me perhpas. Jen Powell-Psmith 13:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've now added the not verified tag to check content. For the record,I did a fairly thorough online check and couldn't confirm most of it. The references I found are in the article.
  • This article is out of date the 2006 elections were held 4 months ago. A look at the candidates for the Maryland senate race doesn't show him as even running in the primary. Granted, he may have dropped out before the primary, but either way, the information is inaccurate and out of date. --Lendorien 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)