Talk:John Katko

Congressional Photo

Are we not able to get his congressional photo for the infobox? Guyb123321 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood edits

To @ChampaignSupernova: Please go ahead and explain how entirely the sentence on his vote on Planned Parenthood is "not remotely neutral" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankam12 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I viewed it as WP:CHERRYPICKING from a source to illustrate a point. It did not appear WP:NEUTRAL to me. A better alternative would be: "In September 2015, Katko joined the majority of the U.S. House in passing a 241-187 measure which would cut off about $500 million of federal funding to Planned Parenthood. The bill was brought forward as a response to the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy." As an aside, please be sure to use an edit summary when making anything other than a minor edit. Also, putting the "@" symbol in front of another user's name doesn't send an alert to the editor--see Template:Reply to#Single recipient for how to do that. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed revision looks fine to me. Why delete the paragraph entirely instead of reformatting it? Barring any objection, I'm going to use that.Frankam12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked the content to the version that was agreed upon here. It appears more neutral to me. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the inclusion of the words "gruesome and illegal" to characterize the videos in this article. It's quite clear from WP:RS that no illegal activity on the part of PP was found, and 'gruesome' is opinion, not fact. Yet, including this phrase, without including the fact that the investigation found precisely the opposite of the claim in the article, is deeply questionable in terms of WP:NPOV.

Either the article should have Katko's characterization of the videos as 'gruesome and illegal', and include the fact that the investigation found no wrongdoing whatsoever except on the part of the video producers, who had illegally obtained and selectively edited those videos. That gets a little too political for my taste, but it is factual.

Or, I have proposed that we use this language instead: "Katko said that he could not support additional funding of the organization while investigations were ongoing." Without any reference to the results of the investigation. That seems perfectly sufficient to me and maintains WP:NPOV much better, although it still refers to an investigation, without telling the reader the investigation was concluded, and the results of that. Frankam12 (talk)

I'm fine with removing the direct quote, but please stop restoring the old version of this paragraph-consensus version is currently in article, and your version has a typo. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary, an individual vote by a House rep would be unlikely to merit a mention, as politicians take thousands of votes annually. This vote is notable because it is reported in a news article on its own in a WP:RS, and the reason for that notability is breaking a campaign promise, as noted in the source. Frankam12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, and that's all in the article now, so what's your point? Safehaven86 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)