Jump to content

Talk:Brian Bilbray

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

49th vs 50th district

[edit]

The infobox wasn't clear before on the fact that Bilbray had previously served in Congress from a different district. If someone with more knowledge of wiki markup could make a separate section of the infobox for Bilbray's 49th district service, that would be great too. SchutteGod (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n/m. Figured it out on my own. SchutteGod (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilbray is Pro-Life

[edit]

There has been some vandalism changing Bilbray from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice. To document his pro-life stance, here's a quote[1]:

  • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk. Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000.
  • Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999.
    • I think many might reasonably include the above votes within "pro-choice". According to the Wikipedia entry for Pro-choice: "People who identify as pro-choice fall along a spectrum of political opinion, ranging from the view that all abortions should be legal, to the view that abortions should only be legal until a certain date in the progression of the pregnancy (such as the third trimester, which is the approximate gestational age at which a fetus can survive outside of a woman's body)." The above positions certainly can fit within that definition. - Jaguar84 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddity in election returns

[edit]

Does anyone understand why the California Secretary of State shows Bilbray with fewer votes than Busby, yet newspapers list a different set of numbers first (only for District 50) showing Bilbray winning, followed by separate sets of vote counts for each political party taken from (an earlier update of) the Secretary of State's site? And why is District 50 the only one with a separate set of non-partisan vote totals listed first and all the other districts only have the separate sets of counts for each party? Neow 07:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I do. I think the first page you are pointing to are for the simulatneous primary that was held on the same day for the November election. To recap: on June 6, there were two elections: (a) to fill Cunningham's seat immediately; and (b) a primary for the upcoming November general election. I guess we need to make our article more clear, eh? That's why my comment, above, that I think we need a separate article just to explain this election (and to put the detailed results in there). -- Sholom 13:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you're right. Here's the page at the Sec. of State with the "special general" election results. Thanks! Neow 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilbray and the VA

[edit]

No comment on veteran dissent with the way Bilbray handles veteran's questions and VA disputes? Maybe that wasn't as wide-spread as some people thought with local San Diego government. Or maybe not, that laptop thing might have caught more press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.160.175 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, uh-huh. SchutteGod (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

Article is juevinile Wiki POV crap by left leaning college students.

Plus you should not that Bilbray is a big surfer, very noteworthy for it. I ran into him at PB in the water a few years ago.

72.82.44.253 (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HCR

[edit]

I know blogs aren't suitable for sources, but if someone wants to research this from an actual news source then it may be notable. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/25/bilbray-tricare/ 75.221.106.57 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying

[edit]

The following paragraph was removed by another editor on the grounds that it was "of little significance." I'm on the fence about that:

From May 2002 until July 2005, Bilbray was a consultant for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative anti-immigration lobbying group founded by John Tanton. He is currently on the federation's board of advisers. In 2006, Bilbray received nearly $10,000 in campaign contributions from members of the federation's board of directors: Nancy Anthony, Sharon Barnes, General Douglas E. Caton, Sarah Epstein, Stephen Swensrud and Alan Weeden.[1]

Thoughts? Arbor8 (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence identified a group for which he consulted while out of office 7 years ago, which seemed of little significance given that his linkage to that group was already established in the preceding paragraph.
The second sentence seemed of little significance for the same reason (i.e., linkage already established). However, as this sentence is about a current situation, it could be considered of more significance.
The third sentence seemed of little significance for the same reason (i.e., linkage already established), and it refers to some perfectly ordinary campaign contributions made 6 years ago. Furthermore, the listing of the individual contributors, none of whom is a significant person (at least by WP standards), seems quite clearly to be of little significance.
I also removed the paragraph on the grounds that it was "irrelevant", by which I meant that none of it had to do with lobbying, the topic of this section.
I also found the paragraph to be inadequately sourced, as the first two sentences had no cites and the cite for the last sentence was to the opensecrets home page, which didn't help. Ron (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ OpenSecrets.org
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Bilbray. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brian Bilbray. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Bilbray&oldid=1257259089"