This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are we not able to get his congressional photo for the infobox? Guyb123321 ( talk) 19:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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'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)