Talk:Pete Stark/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stark's "For the President's amusement" controversy

Since not all Wikipedians who contribute to the Pete Stark article seem to acknowledge the severity of Stark's statement/accusation, I think it would be more appropriate to discuss the matter here on the discussion page rather than wage a stupid editing war over the issue.

My position on the subject is that Stark's statement "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement" is not merely something that should be mentioned at the end of a general section on Stark's position on the American troop presence in Iraq, but rather be treated as a controversy in and of itself. The controversial nature of his statement is not mainly concerning his position on Iraq, but rather that it is evidence of a twisted world view, where he publicly on the House floor states his belief that the President's reason for maintaining an American troops presence in Iraq is because the President is amused by the deaths of the soldiers. When later asked about these outrageous accusations, Stark's response is not to retract his absurd statements, but to once again confirm his belief as previously expressed.

Due to the outrageous nature of Stark's accusations, this controversy requires not a few lines hidden away at the end of a general section on Stark's view on Iraq, but rather a section of its own. Placing the Stark comments at the end of an "Iraq War issues" section is not "putting [them] in context" (as Flatterworld claims), but an obvious attempt to downplay the sever nature of Stark's accusations with the intention of not calling the readers' attention to them. That is clear evidence of a biased view on the subject and something that should be avoided here on Wikipedia.

I hope that this attempt at avoiding an edit war will be welcomed by all contributors to this article and that you will let the issue be settled here instead of wasting your time and mine. Sarnalios 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Stark was clearly speaking out of frustration and anger at the time, and he later apologized. It's worth noting his comments, but I believe you're greatly over-reacting. (For a similar comparison that's been made in the media, Bush made fun of his own search for WMD by showing a video at the Press Club dinner of him looking all over his office at the White House. Clearly the wrong thing to do, but also clearly not worth an entire 'controversies' section in Bush's Wikipedia entry.) That is a non-biased view. Flatterworld 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stark apologized for his accusations five days later and that is in itself amazing. Being such a senior politician himself, Stark must have immediately recognized how severe his accusations were, yet he kept on acting as though he had done nothing wrong for days.

I do not claim that this accusation in itself would warrant a Controversies or Criticism section to the same extent that is the case for many other public figures with a habit of making highly controversial statements. But this is however not the first highly controversial thing that Stark has received criticism for, so including such a section in this article is quite proper. This is a non-biased view.

I further do not see how accusing someone of wanting the death of the country's own soldiers can even be compared to making fun of oneself. Suggesting that the two are even remotely similar is simply silly, to put it kindly. Sarnalios 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not silly at all. It seems you have no empathy for anyone who has given their life, limbs or health in the war. If you did, you might understand why people went ballistic went over the President's 'funny' video. You may or may not recall the invasion was sold to the public as based on the imminent threat of WMD. To suggest the sacrifices of soldiers in this search for non-existent WMD are at the level of "oops - sorry!" or American's Funniest Home Videos is not what one would expect a "senior politician" to do. Fighting a war is never silly or funny, and it's certainly not a fit subject of 'humor' when a country is in the middle of fighting it. I would also point out the video was never apologized for, and it was made well in advance of the dinner - a planned gesture, not an off-the-cuff remark. Your claim that Stark's comment is so much worse, when it was clearly made out of frustration and anger at the moment, simply boggles the mind. I think perhaps you should edit articles you aren't so wrapped up in to the point you don't even see your own biased POV. You might also want to wait for other editors to post their opinions, as there's no point in just the two of us arguing. Flatterworld 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of empathy for soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice for what they believe in. This is the reason why Stark's accusations are so outrageous to me and many other people, because Stark is insulting not just the President but also indirectly the troops, by claiming that they are dieing for the President's amusement, not because they are fighting for their beloved country and the values that it represents, trying to create in Iraq a situation that does not threaten America the way Saddam Husein did and the terrorists have done ever since 9/11. But this is clearly beside the point - we are here to discuss the article and how it should be properly structured. That's it, so let's keep the discussion to what is relevant to the article. Since you obviously have plenty of POV bias of your own and are quite willing to let it out, it's certainly better that you do so here than in the article itself. Sarnalios 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, its quite embarrassing to see some local US political partisanship here. From far away this issue looks insignificant and a bit funny. Not unlike two Romans, one saying: "Caligula eats children" and other complaining that the first one is "outrageous", "insulting the emperor", etc. --Magabund 02:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being a U.S. citizen or resident myself, observing Stark's accusations from across the Atlantic, I fully recognize the outrageous nature of Stark's accusations and the criticism that he has rightfully attracted because of it. Therefore I find it difficult to see how this disagreement should be an issue of (at least from my perspective as an outside observer) "some local US political partisanship" and why this controversial statement in addition to the other controversy that Stark has been involved in in the article should not warrant a separate section in the article. The current version of the article clearly downplays those controversies, as should be evident to anyone who takes even a glance at the article, bringing the article's neutrality into question. Sarnalios 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Any soldier still believing it is in USA interests to continue the war is either, well... misleaded (to avoid saying "fool", after over 4 years) or is a warmonger. All this flame around Stark statement is as petty as children's quarrels in a sandbox. What the f*ck is so important in "insults" as long as people keep on dying by thousands in a war that was sold under all false pretext (WMDs? nuclear mushrooms over New York? Saddam involvment in 9/11? "liberating" Iraqis? sure, of course). -- Paul Pogonyshev 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone here that we Wikipedians are not allowed to infer attitudes and such matters as literality vs. hyperbole (let alone get into angry arguments about the subject instead of the article content). Interpretation, if done at all, is the job of reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Ours should be no more than citing and possibly quoting this material. In fact, in these days where the most attention goes to the most strident voices, we should be careful about the neutrality even of reliable sources. Many if not most of us have very strong opinions on the Iraq War and its related subjects, but what we need here is dispassionate summarization of what has already been written on Stark. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel -all- politicians important enough to warrant a Wikipedia article should have, if applicable, a well-rounded and well-researched controversies section. As for this article in paticular, I do not feel the controversies relevant were discussed in a complete and throrough manner. For example, I heard that Nancy Pelosi rebuked Stark. If true, it should be added. Lots42 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if verifiable (by explicitly cited reliable sources), it might be added. (I'm taking no position on the significance of any bits of info here.) Quoting the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in the original). Otherwise, we will have endless unsupported arguments about "truth". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. I was thinking of a CNN archive article or a Senate.gov transcript, to name possible examples. Lots42 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Even though he has no belief in a god, he still is a member of the Unitarian Universalist church, as a "nontheist" member.

>It doesn't matter, he doesn't have a belief in a god therefor he is an a-theist.

He explicitly doesn't self-identify as one, however. He does self-identify as Unitarian. Bryan Derksen 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

>Until now. Now he admits to being an atheist.

There is no contradiction between being nontheistic (which really should be an adjective as it describes only one aspect of someone much like being theistic can range from a Christian to a Muslim to a Shintoist to a Thugee) and being a Unitarian. The old joke was that Unitarians believed in at most one god (nowadays they can believe in any number of gods from 0 to infinity). --Erp 02:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On this same subject, as someone who just saw the news article, I wonder why his quote specifically self-identifies as Unitarian, but all the news reports say Unitarian Universalist. Unitarianism isn't the same as UU, even though Universalism and Unitarian churches combined and basically ended their separate movements in modern times, so how is this person supposed to be identified? I was under the impression Unitarianism, despite being relatively broad, was a deistic non-trinitarian group, and not atheistic when its churches used to exist separate from the UU. Homestarmy 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here myself. Maybe he's a Unitarian Universalist, but thinks it's a bit long and doesn't like to identify as a UU. Let's leave it for now and see if anyone can find any reason why he'd identify as a Unitarian. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I really think that we shouldn't use the word "atheist" unless it's at least attributed to a reliable source. Even if it were though, I'd prefer not to use the term unless Pete Stark himself specifically self-identifies as an atheist, since there are a number of related but distinct terms that people can self-identify as. It's one thing to explain what a given label means, or how Stark might interpret a given label, but it's another thing to start applying new labels that aren't widely applied to him. --Interiot 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he doesn't identify as an atheist, so, even though he does fall under the group of people who can be considered atheists (and thus he can identify as such, if he chooses), he didn't. Therefore it wouldn't be best to call him an atheist since he doesn't identify himself as one. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make it Unitarian Universalist because all the reports say he calls himself a "Unitarian Universalist".--Zombiema7 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, the only ref given at the moment for Unitarianism is a blog, which seems kind of silly because so many news outlets have about the same content, but when I read them, his quote identifies him as "Unitarian", and all the news articles immedietly jump to conclusions for no apparent reason and say "Unitarian Universalists believe....". Homestarmy 15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unitarians believe in the Christian God, but not the Trinity and UUs may or may not subscribe this belief. If he were only a Unitarian he would believe in God, which he doesn't (correct me if I'm wrong here). From what I said above: "Maybe he's a Unitarian Universalist, but thinks it's a bit long and doesn't like to identify as a UU." I think this might just be the case. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On "Unitarian" vs. "Unitarian Universalist", there are still Unitarian churches that did not join the UUA, churches in which nontheists are welcome. It is possible that Stark is a member of one of these congregations. Not a "WP" reliable source, but this blog comment explains it well. However, these non-UUA Unitarian churches are rather few in number, and there are plenty of UUs who don't go to the trouble of saying "Unitarian Universalist" every time they mention it. I think it is quite sane to go with UU unless and until we are specifically informed otherwise. — coelacan — 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we simply put his religion as "Unitarian Universalist(Atheist)"?

And he is not a "Unitarian." That is a Christian faith. He is Unitarian Universalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.203.1 (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

An Omitted Article

"Pete Stark's tiring tirades" from the San Francisco Chronicle was removed. I'm putting it back since it's an editorial by the newspaper.--Username:BRivera

Becareful in using an editorial as an objective claim. If an editorial is added, which I don't think it should, imagine it we included editorials on George W. Bush, it must be made clear whose opinion it is and that it is an editorial. Areasbref 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to link to op-ed pieces, we might as well link to blogs and message boards. They're just as opinionated and unreliable. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-18 18:53Z

on Pete's atheism

All the MAINSTREAM media reported the declared "atheism" of Pete Stark. No one talked about non-theism or spiritualism or agnosticism or whatever you're trying to put.

• SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLES: Voters unfazed by Stark's atheism
• ABC news:: Rep. Stark Applauded for Atheist Outlook
• CBS:Politician Applauded For Revealing Atheist Beliefs
• New York Sun:California Lawmaker Becomes Highest-Ranking Official To Say He's a Nonbeliever

Non-theism is a fuzzy word that describes religions or spiritual beliefs and philosophies that don't embrace the concept of a supernatural deity as monotheist and polytheist religions. This can include buddhism, confucianism, pantheism, deism, etc.....

So even if you think "atheist" is a dirty word, please be objective and do not confuse people with foggy words such as "non-theist". Vincent Shooter

• We should base our wording on his wording, not on a 3rd party interpretation of his wording. If the media had more information on which to base their wording, then I'd listen, but not otherwise. Headlines are intented to draw readership, not be accurate. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-26 13:08Z

I agree with Brian. Also, it isn't that atheist is a "dirty word." Though it may have negative connotations to some, the reason we're not using the word is that he doesn't identify as one (although, technically, he is an atheist because he lacks belief in the existence of any gods). --Alexc3 ^(talk) 03:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. That said, though, we can have information in the article about the public reaction to his position that includes statements like "considered the first atheist representative by blah" etc. As long as we make clear that he didn't call himself that. Bryan Derksen 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point, but I also think it might be making too much of a big deal out of it. Yes, he is the first openly nontheistic congressperson, but I think it's more important that the page has information about him than the fact that he doesn't hold a certain belief. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I haven't done any further editing - I think the article's coverage is just fine as is. However, it may become a bigger issue in the future depending on how press coverage continues to treat this. Figured I'd put in my two cents in case that eventuality developed. Bryan Derksen 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. We'll just have to wait and see, but the article is fine the way it is currently. If his nontheism becomes a bigger issue, it might even get its own section. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-theist, atheist. Exactly the same thing. Pete Stark should be proud of his atheism and we should all admire him for his bravery. So why can't the article mention that he is an atheist? The only reason 'atheist' has a 'negative connotation' in the US is because non-religious people are demonised. And this is also the reason American politicians had to lie about their lack of belief.--77.248.90.202 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Bias here

"Stark is a peace advocate. He also supports increasing the availability of health care, revitalizing the economy, and protecting the environment." This reads like a campaign pamphlet. Hell, who would not support those things? I've heard these fluffy words from almost every politician. Ronn

I agree, that should be sourced. I think you should feel free to remove it if you want to. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I added some criticism because he has faced criticism and similar sections are in articles of Congressman this prominent. I tried to put in defenses too though.--T. Anthony 04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)