Talk:Diane Pappas

Castration controversy
Maybe someone local to Illinois should add information about her unusual position on abortion and public policy. See: www.lifenews.com/2019/04/26/pro-life-advocate-wants-pro-abortion-democrat-legislator-censured-for-saying-men-should-be-castrated. I hope this is just a piece of false propaganda from her opponents, but it's showing up in more than one source. I live far away so do not have good local sources at hand. Ceegee0123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I found a number of good sources reporting on this, though the section has been removed completely, with the summary: "unbalanced and disproportionate detail". Now, if the issue is disproportionate detail then the solution is to make the text a little more concise, not wholesale removal of the content. Also, the rest of the article is somewhat sparse, so a further solution is to expand other sections, something I have already attempted to some extent. As for the concerns of balance, well I searched in full for her response to the allegations, but there simply isn't one. Thus the only balance we can add is to note that she and her colleagues were approached for comment multiple times and declined to reply. If Pappas won't say anything then it's simply impossible to put her defence across becasue no one knows what it is! Anyway, there are now at least three editors who wish to see this content added in some form, I'll therefore restore it in a more concise form, omitting the comments of Holder.Shakehandsman (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A remark that was clearly not an actual policy proposal, reported in a blog run by a Republican operative, are not good sources. The DuPage Policy Journal, the Will County Gazette, and West Cook News are not actual newspapers. They are run by Dan Proft, a Republican operative. It would be the equivalent of citing a Democratic press release about Mark Batinick. It is not a reliable source and should be removed immediately. If it is mentioned, it should be noted it wasn't a real policy proposal.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources in question do appear to have a bias, but then so do most publications. There's an extreme bias at the likes of CNN, The Guardian etc and we don't ban those sources, it's the quality and accuracy of the reporting we're concerned with. The articles are well written and even your source critiquing them shows they're run by an experienced journalist and they do indeed produce printed material too. As for whether her remark is a "policy proposal" or not, well it doesn't appear that she has formally submitted it, but the article text in its current form is merely noting it as one of her ideas that she has floated in meetings with constituents, it doesn't suggest it's something that's to be debated by her colleagues or anything like that. Your suggestion that "it should be noted it wasn't a real policy proposal" seems somewhat troubling or at least impossible. I mean, if any sources state she wasn't serious then yes we should go ahead and add this, but there doesn't appear to be a single source that states as such and thus it would be 100% fabricated content on our part. We need to remain neutral and given that she's now made the suggestion more than once then we can't assume whether she is serious or not, especially as she hasn't given any indication either way. In a lot of these cases you see extremist politicians making quite sick but genuine comments in order to appeal to one audience whilst in front of another, or if the proposal gets a big backlash, they're claim "oh I wasn't really being serious", effectively trying to have their cake and eat it. Alternatively, they might be testing the waters for a slightly less hateful (but still fairly awful) policy proposal. Whatever the case, we can only use the content in the sources, and thus we onyl get to interpret it the way various individuals involved have interpreted it. If Pappas does eventually come out and suggest she wasn't making a genuine proposal, then even then that wouldn't justify the removal of the section as it is clearly now a notable part of her career and its a sick and extremely misandrist thing to have said either way.Shakehandsman (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I finally managed to find a response from one of Pappas' colleagues, so that gives much more balance to the section now. Of course it's not as good a hearing from Pappas herself, but we can't add that until she actually gives her side of the story.Shakehandsman (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort to find a response from a Democrat, but I think you may have missed my major point. Those sources (including the added Peoria Standard) are not newspapers. They are perpetual 24/7 negative advertisements. To cite them at all IMHO (with no context as to their publisher) is wrong. The other changes to the article are great.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)