Talk:Staci Appel

Unsourced information

Please don't add information to the article unless it is sourced. More information is always great, but it must be verified. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions of legislation

Language describing bills should describe the actual purpose of the bills and reflect NPOV. Assertions about the results of these bills require citations. A link to the bill text is not a sufficient citation for an opinion not included in the content of the bill. Any assertions of controversy require citations showing actual debate and not simply a citation showing a contrary opinion. Dakba (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First Women in Congress from Iowa

The following statement is not necessarily accurate. There are several women running for election to Congress from Iowa in 2014. If one of them is elected (and Appel is also elected), Appel would not be "the first woman...". She would be "one of the first women...".

If elected, Appel would be the first woman to ever represent Iowa in Congress.[10] CFredkin (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently there have been zero female federal representatives of Iowa. If elected she would be the first. -TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that in the source? CFredkin (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am adding a source for the statement, even though it is considered common knowledge. -TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Kent Sorenson

Statements regarding the political career of Kent Sorenson following his defeat of Appel are not relevant to a bio on Appel. CFredkin (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is important to note exactly who defeated her in her reelection campaign. -TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That is already noted. But his subsequent tenure is not relevant. CFredkin (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Statewide Preschool Program

User NeilN I will be undoing your revert of my previous edit. Your note about not using partisan sources is well advised; however, the information is non-partisan, and neutral. That being said removing the partisan source would have been more appropraite, that being said I included the extremely useful and neutral source from votesmart.org "http://votesmart.org/bill/4035/12562/57124/staci-appel-voted-yea-passage-hf-877-statewide-preschool-program#12562". It would have been more appropriate to leave the information, and the valid sources, while removing the "invalid" source. TheKillingNoise (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I did do that [1]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it upon myself to remove non-neutral sources, as well as non-neutral language, while leaving the neutral information. I've also added a new source, and altered the language to match that reliable source. NOTE, please do not remove this comment again from the talk page User NeilN. NOTE 2, it would be more appropriate to take discussions to my opinions of sources to my "Talk" page. TheKillingNoise (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

TheKillingNoise, I did not remove that comment on purpose - it was an edit conflict. Where is this mentioned in the source: "One of her children currently attends a pre-school funded by this program"? I could not spot it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

TheKillingNoise, you're editing but I still don't have an answer on this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin made a good point. The sources you supplied don't support any of the text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

TheKillingNoise if you need to be told that this is not an appropriate source for "landmark legislation" then you have no business being around BLP's. I was this close to reporting you for your WP:3RR violation yesterday. You'll not get a second chance from me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

State-wide pre-school program

PiM (FKA TheKillingNoise): Please indicate here exactly where in the source provided, it states that Appel wrote this legislation.CFredkin (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Peace In Mississippi has re-added the material, using this as a source. 4/18/07 – HF 877 is not mentioned anywhere in it so I have removed the statement. This is not the first time they've added references not verifying article content so any new sources should be checked carefully. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

HF 877 is the proper name for the statewide preschool program bill, and while it is not included in the first source, it was included in earlier sources, including here: (http://votesmart.org/candidate/57124/staci-appel?categoryId=&type=V,S,R,E,F,P&p=2#.UwEV3fldV1Y). I will be re-adding the content, please do not cherry pick for improper language, and instead help to edit and improve the encyclopedia.Peace In Mississippi (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

VOTED not WROTE. Is there any reason why you should not get a final warning for unsourced additions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The 2nd source cited that she wrote the legislation. Please read the sources before reverting my edits again.Peace In Mississippi (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your very weak source states she wrote the "Healthy Kids Act", not HF-877. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"This note arrived July 25, 2013 from Amy K. Dacey, executive director of EMILY’s List. Staci Appel (IA-03), a former state senator who wrote landmark legislation for quality preschool programs, is running to become Iowa’s first Democratic congresswoman." User NeilN please see past your bias and cease removing my informational edits.Peace In Mississippi (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And as discussed above, the partisan blog you just added is not a reliable source for a BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And if she had written the statewide preschool program bill, one suspects that the zoominfo source would have mentioned it, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read every article published in U.S. newspapers in 2007 about Staci Appel from Newsbank. There are 31 of them. Although she's clearly a prominent backer of this bill, since she's quoted about it even on NPR, not one of the stories mentions who wrote it. It looks like it came out of a committee. She's nowhere named as a sponsor. Obviously I may still be wrong, but it doesn't look like she wrote it in any sourceable sense of that word.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Employment history/Board membership/group membership, etc.

Employment history/Board membership/group membership, etc.

My addition of Mrs. Appel's employment, board, and group history should not have been removed. It is valuable information with sourced references. It reflects on her qualifications, her personal history, her religious involvement, and her involvement with the public school system.

This article is not a substitute for Appel's campaign site. As Collect said, "we need evidence of each claim and notability other than "campaign brochure filler" for anyone of any party at all" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Her employment history, board memberships, etc are not notable and thus should not be included. Arbor8 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of press releases

[2] shows a newspaper using a press release. Collect (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

2nd sentence about husband

Should the second sentence of the article really be about who she is married to? I'm concerned that this may subtly diminish her. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As that's not what she's notable for, I've removed that sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)