Talk:John Katko

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.

This page is about a 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. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

New York (state): Syracuse Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syracuse, New York, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

U.S. Congress

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Politics: American

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Congressional Photo

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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