Talk:Chris Smith (New Jersey politician)/Archive 1

Untitled

 * Is there any reference to give credit to the phrase, "Originally a Democrat" listed under History?

Smith, the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, is one of the most rabidly anti-abortion members of Congress. is obviously partisan, so I'm just going to mention that he's Co-Chairman which should make it obvious that he would be anti-abortion. --Ricky81682 08:52, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * In general he's quite moderate. from what I've read, and his voting record is generally viewed positively by both environmentalists and human rights groups. The environmental voting record group I checked only marked him off for not supporting contraception to the Third World.--T. Anthony 06:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * He's moderate, except when it comes to abortion. He's definitely one of the most pro-life members of Congress.  But calling it a "rabidly anti-abortion" group is clearly POV, so maybe something like "assertively pro-life" or something less strident in tone.  Sleeper99999 11:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture?
I added a pic from the House International Affairs Committee website but it's really small and crappy. Can anyone out there either find a better pic, or else monkey with the template to make the pic smaller? To be honest I'm not sure exactly how to do that. Sleeper99999 11:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Veteran comittee
Didn't Smith get removed from the Veteran's comittee at the end of the 108th Congress (his site says: "From 2001 to 2004, Smith served as Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a panel responsible for the well-being of our nation's 25 million military veterans.")? Why was he? I ask because there seem to be some rumours that he was kicked off for opposing the Bush administration on Iraqi veteran benefits. --129.21.179.34 23:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * During this weekend's "conversation" on health care (3/21/10), a congressman remarked that Congressman Smith was removed from his position on the panel because he dared to side with the veterans (against Bush) to provide funding for VA health benefits at a time when the money was gone for them (June 2005) and was not to be funded again until October when the new fiscal year was to begin. He sided with Veterans, and was supposedly removed for siding against Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.190.74 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Residency
Since 1983 Smith's family has resided in Herndon, Va. He will not comment on whether his youngest child receive in-state tuition at a state university in Virginia. I'm trying to think of a way to incorporate the issue into his wiki bio. Any thoughts? Link to one story here: http://politickernj.com/matt-friedman/19093/chris-smith-represents-new-jersey-where-does-he-live Njsamizdat (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-elected
Chris Smith is re-elected again this year during the presidential election. Should someone add that he is facing Trenton born Josh Zeitz? Because I am not saying that he is from Bordentown, because he is a liar for claiming that he graduated from Bordentown Regional High School and he has not said what year Mr. Zeitz graduated and I am saying that because I know most people who went to Bordentown, and I am proud to graduated from there. --Miss Lindsie (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fetal cannibalism hoax
"Smith has been a strident opponent of the Chinese practice of fetal cannibalism, and was only one of three members of Congress to expose this practice in the House (Congressional Record, China Policy Act of 1995, July 20, 1995, page H7277)."

I have removed this sentence because nothing was "expose[d]"; the allegations of fetal cannibalism were shown to be fraudulent:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/horrors/a/eating_babies.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.190.89 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Online Freedom Act
I've added a section in the article for the Global Online Freedom Act, which actually needs its own Wikipedia article, especially due to the bipartisan support from Speaker Pelosi, and thereby the likelihood of its passage in some form. The topic sections in the article should probably be organized either in chronological or alphabetical order.Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Tags, Tags, Tags
This article says:

It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since December 2008. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since December 2008. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since December 2008. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since December 2008. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since December 2008.

Yet I see no discussion of these issues on this page. Admittedly some, such as "needs sources or references" are pretty self-explanatory, others though, such as NPOV and OR are not so clear... even "general cleanup" is pretty vague. With no discussion I'm admittedly somewhat inclined to be bold and delete the ambiguous ones altogether, but I'm hoping someone can clarify their intent.--Cybermud (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
This article states that this bill would change the legal definition of rape, which is absurd, since "the" legal definition of rape is not included in the scope of the bill. The text of the bill does not in fact define rape at all; the word "rape" occurs only twice in the text (one of these instances is a section title) and the word "definition" does not occur at all. The rape exception text states that the bill's restrictions do not apply "if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest." Forcible rape, meanwhile, has long been defined by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports program. The UCR definition would appear to include all incidents of non-consensual sex with a female, even if only the threat of force, rather than actual physical force, was involved. Finally, the citations for the statement are the extremely POV blog Daily Kos and a broken link to an ABC news story. Therefore I am removing this language from this article and from other articles where similar language appears. --Ginkgo100talk 21:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that the prior wording was problematic (as well as the line that was pasted on all the Dem co-sponsors pages) but I'm not sure what is there now is great either. Is this really notable enough to include that much about it in multiple bios? Maybe it should have its own entry? Arbor832466 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this wording works well. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chris Smith (New Jersey politician). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Chris Smith (New Jersey politician). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905050548/http://www.house.gov:80/apps/list/press/nj04_smith/silentnomore.html to http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj04_smith/silentnomore.html
 * Added tag to http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0203/Did-bill-try-to-redefine-rape-GOP-backs-down-after-public-outcry
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116134934/http://www.sba-list.org/legislation/pro-life/no-taxpayer-funding-abortion-act-hr-7-s946 to http://www.sba-list.org/legislation/pro-life/no-taxpayer-funding-abortion-act-hr-7-s946
 * Added tag to http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/847
 * Added tag to http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1073
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506053605/http://www.cecc.gov:80/pages/hearings/general/hearing6/index.php to http://www.cecc.gov/pages/hearings/general/hearing6/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100403024959/http://www.rsf.org:80/spip.php?page=article to http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=27237

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 travel ban
"Chris Smith has been silent on the 2017 U.S. president's ban on refugees.[72]"

I think this misrepresents the case. The linked web page shows a link to his public statement on the ban, which makes it very clear that while he acknowledges that the ban was poorly implemented, he also feels there are good intelligence reasons for supporting such a ban. That hardly constitutes being silent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.86.98 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, FWIW, the only time Smith *ever* responded to any of my messages as a constituent (phone, or email) was to an email where I said I opposed the travel ban: his reply was a verbatim copy of his public message. So he pretty clearly feels that he has made a statement on the ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.86.98 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Gay adoption controversy
The following text is disputed (subject to edit-warring):


 * A visit of Smith's to the Colts Neck High School auditorium on May 29, 2018, caused controversy in September 2018 when the Washington Blade released an audio excerpt and wrote an article claiming it represented Smith saying that children would be better off in orphanages than getting adopted by LGBT families.  Smith's office disputed this interpretation of his remarks and released other audio of the event to demonstrate that this was not his position.

Please offer your views on it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * seems balanced and objective to me. I'd add a link to the actual audio recording (time 41:42): -Wormcast (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Hungary
Smith has been outspoken Anti-Semitism; he has not condemn Hungarian prime-minister and his party. https://www.nj.com/politics/2019/06/chris-smith-has-led-efforts-to-fight-anti-semitism-hes-accused-of-remaining-silent-in-this-case.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Lyme disease bioweapon conspiracy theory
Some of this material probably belongs in this article and not at the main Lyme disease article. — Paleo Neonate  – 07:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I copied that over, editing it slightly and appropriated some content from chronic Lyme disease for context. Not really sure where it should go though, I just put it as a subsection under "Health Care". Volteer1 (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 12:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding other spillover for reference (permalink, please make sure to refresh the page to the latest version if intending to reply there): Talk:Operation Sea-Spray § Chris Smith speculation — Paleo Neonate  – 15:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Human rights
The current article appears somewhat promotional IRT human rights. I see material that supports this, but also opposition to human rights like abortion, LGBT, that appear to be cast as something else (evasion of the full topic). Some of the lead, also promotional and skipping the issue, may be undue. While the "Human rights" section seems very large, it seems that "Abortion" and "Domestic violence" would also belong there. There also are general religious and China-related positions presented uncritically as human right issues (some genuinely, others ideological or partisan). — Paleo Neonate  – 19:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)