Talk:Neil Parrott

Sharpsburg Pike.
What's going on at Sharpsburg Pike ? Staked recently with engineering staked. Says RW on staked. Is there plans soon to widen the highway? 107.127.32.62 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This Wikipedia talk page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article about Neil Parrott. It isn't a way of contacting him or discussing his record. As such, it's unlikely anyone here will be able to respond to this inquiry. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ballot initiatives
I can't connect to MDPetitions.com ("Server Not Found"). Does it still exist? I haven't found a recent source that mentions it. If a source for its current status can be found, it could be a worthwhile addition to this article. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

2020 presidential election
An IP editor recently removed the section of this article describing Parrott's engagement with attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. I haven't reverted as I think it's often best not to restore possibly contentious material in the absence of a clear consensus, but I don't find their argument compelling. The material doesn't "lack context"; context is precisely what's provided by clauses like "Following the 2020 United States presidential election" and "After his colleague Daniel L. Cox attended the January 6 rally". While the article is indeed on the shorter side, that isn't by design and obviously shouldn't prevent adding reliably-sourced material. And, while I can't remember precisely what I was thinking when I added this section in January 2021, I doubt my intention was "to associate candidate with Jan 6 events" – the relatively minimal extent of his engagement with those events is fairly clear from the section as written. Of course, I wouldn't object to revising the wording to make that clearer if necessary. I'd be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the text was just fine. I see no problem with reverting the IP editor's change. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems undue to me. The article only includes brief mention of Parrott, and I don't see how his comments on a colleague are that relevant. Maybe there are more sources out there re. Parrott and January 6, but this one article from January 13, 2021 (before many details of events of January 6 were known), doesn't seem to be adding that much to me. Marquardtika (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a form in which this could be included that you'd be more comfortable with? For example, if it's the fact that we're mentioning Parrott's comments on Cox, we could instead mention his comments on participants in the January 6th events more broadly, quoted in the same source ("The vast majority of people were simply there to support fair elections ... They had no idea that some people were going to try to take over the rally and make it violent").
 * I'd also point out that WP:UNDUE is a policy about how we present different viewpoints, perspectives or opinions, while the fact that Parrott made these comments is a fact. It's possible to argue that by including some facts and not others the article creates a biased or misleading impression, but it's not really an undue weight issue as such. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think including the general quote about January 6 participants would be an improvement, yes. Marquardtika (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done – feel free to revise further. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted another edit by the IP editor again. Maybe we should discuss temporarily restricting edit access on the IP address or have a protection template. ― If we can make even the darkness shine, it will become a starry sky &#124; Dulcetia 04:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Biased Neil Parrott page content added by a writer.
Parrott’s March 2005 letter to the editor, written well before he was elected a state delegate in 2010, cited an earlier article in the paper that reported a rise in HIV cases in Washington County and that there had been “cases in which people knew they were infected and continued to engage in risky behavior.” Parrott’s letter called for a “compassionate and serious solution” that could protect the dignity of people who are infected while effectively preventing the spread of the disease. “One such solution is a tattoo for those who are infected,” Parrott wrote. “This mark could be inconspicuously placed, perhaps in a spot covered by a bathing suit, warning only those who might engage in intimate encounters with the infected person.

Neil Parrott as a private citizen wrote a letter to the Editor, not an op-ed as elected Delegate in the State of Maryland legislature. He did not say "should be tattooed". A person's opinion before he become a politician must be quoted with complete original words along with the Herald-Mail media's link showing the actual letter to the editor.

The following content is a stretch to say "arguing" and "should be tattooed" and is a very biased revision after Neil Parrott became an elected official.

"In March 2005, Parrott wrote an op-ed for The Herald-Mail arguing that HIV-positive patients who are given life-saving medication should be tattooed "in a spot covered by a bathing suit" to prevent potential sex partners from becoming unknowingly infected. During his run for the Maryland House of Delegates in 2010, he said he no longer supported the idea, citing advancements made in medicine to treat HIV. Parrott responded similarly to David Trone raising the issue in the 2022 congressional campaign." Cmeyyur (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello! I am the editor who wrote that section. The wording and quotes in the sentence you find issue with is based on the Baltimore Sun article interviewing Parrott ("GOP freshman challenges Maryland power structure"), in which the phrase "arguing that HIV-positive patients should be tattooed" is used. It does not matter if Parrott held these views before becoming a state legislator - a political position is a political position, and the position someone was in when they said it should not disqualify it from being included in the page. Additionally, using Parrott's own op-ed as a source in this situation would likely violate Wikipedia's rules on citing self-published sources. Y2hyaXM (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Cmeyyur (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Neil Parrott did not write an op-ed.
 * What is op-ed slang for?
 * According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, an op-ed is "An essay in a newspaper or magazine that gives the opinion of the writer and that is written by someone who is not employed by the newspaper or magazine" and stands for opposite editorial. Op-Eds are sometimes referred to as Opinions and/or Commentary.
 * It was a letter to the Editor. Here is the exact verbiage from Baltimore Sun. Op-Ed has much more gravitas than a letter to the editor. Would you care to change it letter to the editor from op-ed.
 * In a move that made some in his own party uneasy, he wrote a letter in 2005 to the editor of his local newspaper arguing that HIV-positive patients should be tattooed “in a spot covered by a bathing suit” before being given life-saving medications. The mark would serve as a warning so potential sex partners would not unknowingly become infected, Parrott said. Cmeyyur (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally see a "letter to the editor" as being the same thing as an op-ed - sorry for the confusion. Regardless, it still wouldn't make a difference as it would still be a self-published source. I have edited the page to say "letter to the editor" instead of op-ed. Y2hyaXM (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank You. Democracy needs lot of help. And your help is very much appreciated. Both are the same, but there is a huge difference and that is in the stature of the contributor. Wall Street Journal and Washington Post accept Op-Ed from President Biden. If I write to them that would be utmost a letter to the editor. Here is one from USA today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/05/14/biden-congress-act-gun-violence/70208852007/
 * One has to be a VIP to write a Op-Ed. Cmeyyur (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)