Talk:Doug Mastriano

Archives (Index)

2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/August 2024/June

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Mislabeling Mastriano with opinionated titles

Unconstructive political griping that ignores policy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I came to this page as a British person with some interest in US politics to find out who Doug Mastriano is, after he was referenced by Fetterman in debate with Oz (I saw a Twitter clip). I'm not someone with a dog in this fight, I'm here to learn. I was pretty surprised to read that the Republicans had a far-right nominee, and looked for evidence. Reading this talk page, it seems the justification for the "far right" label is simply that it's been used by media outlets like the NYT and others. To me, the fact that the New York Times and other major news outlets that regularly endorse Democrats have chosen to label him far-right does not make calling him fight-right an objective fact compliant with WP:NPOV; the objective fact that he has been described as such by politically-opposed media outlets should be relegated to a section labelled "Controversy", not to the summary. If the standard for WP:NPOV is that the NYT says it, then Wikipedia has been reduced to simply endorsing the NYT point of view. That demeans Wikipedia. Administrators should act. 213.205.194.224 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC) I've now seen that there have been several appeals against use of the label "far-right", but it was blocked on the grounds that a consensus against the label must be formed to remove it; as long as this remains controversial the label stays. This is because the article is "semi-protected" - a status that was applied by a user User:El C whose userpage consists mainly of a quote from Lenin and whose talk page begins with a picture of Che Guavarra. This looks to me like deliberate abuse. I'm losing confidence in Wikipedia. 213.205.194.224 (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Similarly I came to this page as a non-American, to find out who Doug Mastriano is, after being referenced by Fetterman in the debate. I agree completely that this article is shamefully biased. Invariably, these hit piece wikipedia articles are also locked so can only be edited by some kind of power users. 182.239.143.10 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC) I will push to remove any reference to Doug Mastriano being called "far-right" unless someone can cite a legitimate reason for that title. Citing left-leaning journalism opinion pieces that reference things like January 6th attendance and being associated with people that follow Q Anon is not evidence of "far right". If you want to call someone far right, you must cite specific policy that makes them "far right". Attending a the speech at Jan 6 and being associated with people is not "far right". Frankly, Mastriano has been fairly moderate in his voting record (he voted to pass Act 77 - is that "far right"?) If Mastriano is the nominee for Governor, this space can not be used to peddle propaganda to disparage him. Cite specific "far right" policies, you can't just call people extremists.--Engineer-005 (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Mainstream journalism in reliable sources that you disagree with is not "opinion," only material that is clearly published as op-ed material is considered opinion. Please identify how the sources that you dispute originate as opinion. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Media Matters is the second cited source. They are a an openly progressive organization aligned with the Democratic party and hardly unbiased on the subject. 174.54.160.179 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC) I see that there have been a number of recent edits removing the well-sourced description in the lede as "unsourced." While that's not true, I'm not keen on loading the lead sentence up with adjectives for any political biography, so I've left it alone. I'm also not keen on day-before-the-primary partisan editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Nobody has once removed something for being "unsourced". I remove labels that are opinion. I mean for Goodness sake, there is a sentence in the 2nd paragraph that says "HE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS"...WHAT?! HUH!? So anyone can just write a news article and now that's a biography on Wikipedia? DESCRIBED AS!? I'm not kidding, if that's the standard you folks are going to use, this will get MESSY. Engineer-005 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Echoing a comment above, material sourced by mainstream independent reliable sources should not be removed just because someone dislikes or disagrees with what it says. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC) If that's the standard you're going to use, a lot of Democrat politician Wikipedia pages will begin reading like Fox News articles. Just because a mainstream news source wrote an article does not mean it is Gospel, fact or not opinionated. Please, tell me why Doug Mastriano is "far right". Thanks Engineer-005 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC) It's not "propaganda". It's Politico, the New Yorker, and the New York Times, all established, reputable sources. Act 77 is a terrible example, at the time it was passed unanimously by Republicans with only one Democratic vote. He has since opposed the bill. And his victory speech last night espoused various far-right rhetoric. Unless a more reliable source can be produced that shows why Mastriano isn't far-right, the label of far-right should remain. Tickery (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Sorry to say that those are all left wing news sources, whether or not they are "established". If I went to Newsmax, Breitbart or Fox, established news sources, and they called Josh Shapiro a far left socialist, in no universe would I add that to a Wikipedia article and pretend that's a legitimate sourcing. I notice that nobody has at any time in this rant and rave in response to Mastriano justified WHY he is far right. What specific position does he hold that makes him far right? Again, he's quite moderate based on his record. But I guess the opinion of a NYT writer means more than his record? What SPECIFIC view does he hold that is "far right"? Engineer-005 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC) This is a false equivalence. We do not base assessments of source reliability on partisan bias, we base them on journalistic practices. The NYT (this piece is not opinion) is reliable for US politics. Breitbart is not. Discussions about source reliability happen at WP:RSN, not each article's talk page. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC) It's not a false equivalency. You are the one displaying your bias by saying such. The NYT has an agenda the same way Brietbart has an agenda. Both are biased. Your refusal to admit that and to prop the NYT up as a beacon of truth quite literally proves my point. And we go yet another comment where you fail to point out what specifically about Doug Mastriano is "far right". His stances on almost everything align quite normally to mainstream Republican and conservative thinking. Attending a Q anon conference may make you foolish, but not "far right". Engineer-005 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC) It has been pointed out to you multiple times what makes him far-right. You pretending not to hear it is not the same as us not telling you. His participation in a coup attempt by trying to have Biden's electoral votes nullified by the state legislature is the main thing sources point to, and he has also supported some aspects of QAnon (not just attendance at the event). Bias ≠ unreliability. Bias shows in reliable sources such as the NYT through what they choose to focus on and their opinion content. In unreliable sources like Breitbart, bias manifests as fabricated information. If you wish to challenge what we consider reliable, then we have a venue for discussing that, the reliable sources noticeboard. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC) That does not make one far-right. Someone is far-right when they support far right legislation. Should we then change AOC's page to communist politician? You calling it a coup attempt is actually a pathetic showing of your own bias, and it seems you are the only one here seriously holding up this article. 72.235.8.165 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Seriously? This is the type of professionalism that wikipedia exudes? You claiming that one source is more "reliable". You might as well include the New York Post because that newspaper has been around since the founding of this nation 72.235.8.165 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Enough of us agree that “far right” should be removed. Let’s remove it then. Richinstead (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Labeling Doug Mastriano as "far right" is slander. The is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Please just stick to the facts. Referencing several journalists' opinions does not turn opinions into facts. The entire Wikipedia page referencing Mr Mastriano looks like like it was written by a PAC. Nbkta1r (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Again, the majority of editors agree that needs to be changed, so change it already. Richinstead (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC) That is not accurate. There is clear consensus to include among people referencing actual policy (I don't count the QAnon troll who has been indef blocked), and it is well-sourced. Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your political agenda. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

When I access wikipedia, I am solicited for donations. When I see politically biased positions defended merely by referring to other politically biased sources while the hit piece remains in place month after month, I am not motivated to donate. Sorry, the buck stops here.75.87.6.170 (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

They don't need your money. And if you really believe the "stolen election" story, then you're too stupid to be editing here anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the hyperlinked “far-right”

You are only hyperlinking the term to gaslight and disparage the subject. I recommend keeping the moniker “far-right” but removing the hyperlink. 2600:1016:B00D:6EFE:183A:E80:83C4:B096 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

We include references to show we're not just making it up, but that reliable sources say it. We're not Conservapedia. soibangla (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

No, we're far-left-pedia, clearly. All the wording in this article is designed to make Mastriano look bad. It's so obvious. JackGunn (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of this site is to not have a bias; if it feels too "far left" for you, edit it with more objective wording. Don't be one of those people who looks at an article about someone who stabbed someone else and complains that there are references to newspaper articles talking about the stabbing as "demonizing" the subject. Naw, man, they reported on a stabbing. If you don't want articles about your stabs online, stop stabbing people. It is absolutely frightening how many people don't get that. Not everything is a persecution. 71.47.252.144 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that editors have a left-wing bias, and they are the ones who decide what "reliable sources" are. I have looked over the list on many occasions, and noticed a pattern where if a source has even a slight editorial bias to the right, they cannot be used as a source. But equidistant to the left side sources will be fully green, or at most yellow with a caveat that opinions should be noted. And even without that internal bias, there is the institutional bias that exists in the broader media from which Wikipedia draws its information. NPR is considered a solid-green reliable source even though it routinely skews its reporting by selectively leaving out facts that interfere with or contradict the subtext of the story. So who decides that NPR is a reliable source? People who already believe NPR's subtext and are equally uninterested in or concerned with inconvenient facts being left out. Stories that gratify one's biases rarely get a skepticism check.

You can pretend that this problem doesn't exist with Wikipedia. But clearly your own biases cause blind spots in your own editing. Heck, I can see it here. Mastriano classified as "far right." And conveniently linked is a page about the term "far right" that doesn't even match his views. The section on "far right" in the United States describes it as "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism." I'm sorry, but only an incredibly biased editor could go from "Mastriano doesn't believe in gay marriage" to saying that he is a member of the Joy of Satan Ministries or Christian Identity, neither of which bears any relation to the Christianity he believes in. 66.49.112.52 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

And you can pretend that "Christian nationalism" is Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to hyperlink the term “far-right” other than to link to a page that has scarier things posted there (Hitler, oh my!). We need to remove it. Richinstead (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because an outlet reported on a stabbing that does negate the fact that news outlets all have agendas. That said this debate ended several months ago and the text wasn’t removed. I agree that if you want to make something unbiased you should contribute, but shooting down someone who is utilizing a *talk* page as intended as complaining. People are encouraged to take it to the talk page for disagreements just like this one. Sciophobiaranger (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Separation of church and state “myth”

I know this sentence is listed to paint him as a conspiracy theorist, but the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture, according to experts. Therefore it is a myth. So, Doug is in good company with Michael W. McConnell the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, as well as Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/recordings/michael-mcconnell-religion-and-law-there-connection Richinstead (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please read Separation of church and state in the United States. The separation of church and state is a key aspect of the First Amendment. This has nothing to do with religion in American culture, it is about religion in American government. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. It even states in the first flipping sentence that it’s a “metaphor.” Richinstead (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"Wrong." Really? And as your rebuttal you provide...the demonstration that you didn't even read the article? Get over your man-crush on this dude. How many comments are you going to spill on this thing. You can't save him. 71.47.252.144 (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

There won't be many more, at least not under that user ID as it's been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Placement of "far-right" hyperlink in lead.

I support the consensus to make note of Mastriano's far-right positions in the lead, but I believe this is better suited for the third paragraph than the third. The first paragraph is a general overview; information that can be gleaned about the subject from the onset. The third paragraph is specifically about his far-right positions and actions. Bluerules (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel it's suitable to include in the opening sentence per current consensus (as mentioned by Pennsylvania2) as a descriptor, as it's a fairly crucial part of why Mastriano is as notable as he is - evidenced by the sheer number of publications that refer to him as a far-right politician and the fact he's referred to as expressly being "far-right" in coverage of all the stories he's involved in. Compare it to Marjorie Taylor Greene's page, for example. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Mastriano is notable for being a state senator and a major party's gubernatorial nominee. Like I said, him being far-right is definitely important enough to acknowledge in the lead, but it's not why this article exists. He would be notable for being a politician without the far-right views. Basing the wording of this article on Greene's article would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, I am open to keeping the far-right hyperlink in the first paragraph. I think the second sentence could say this:

"A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his far-right views."

Would anyone support moving the far-right hyperlink to the second sentence? This way, we would connect his political party and ideology in the same sentence instead of identifying his views before we identify his party. Bluerules (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's another potential way to incorporate the far-right hyperlink into the second sentence:

"Known for his far-right views, he is the Republican nominee in the 2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election." Bluerules (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the amount of coverage he has received as a result of his far-right political views make it an important enough factor to preface "politician" with it in the first sentence. Also, OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions is it not? Nonetheless, I was giving MTG's article as a comparable example of a similar far-right politician and how it's dealt with in her article, so I'm not seeing how this is a case of OTHERSTUFF at all. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

One component of OTHERSTUFF is we can't write articles simply based on how other articles are written. We're not allowed to identify Mastriano as "far-right" in the first sentence because Greene's article does the same thing; articles are written by different editors who reached a different consensus. Likewise, we can't write Mastriano's article based on how Bernie Sanders' article is written. In Sanders' case, he has also received significant coverage for his democratic socialist views, but "democratic socialist" (or even far-left) does not preface "politician" in the first sentence. His democratic socialist position does not appear until the last paragraph and that paragraph is entirely focused on his views.

While I can't use Sanders' article as an argument to rewrite Mastriano's article, I believe this is a better way to write Mastriano's article. We keep his viewpoints focused in one paragraph instead of conflating basic information with information we have to explain later. Nevertheless, I am open to keeping the far-right hyperlink in the first paragraph and moving it to the second sentence. Bluerules (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, because I'm not seeing anything in the essay that says this. Anyway, once again, I wasn't saying "we should write it this way because MTG's article is written as thus", merely giving an example of how a politician's far-right views can be incorporated into the lede. I maintain my original position. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, the relevant guideline here is WP:OTHERCONTENT, not OTHERSTUFF. And looking past this guideline, Greene's article technically doesn't call her a "far-right politician". It calls her a "far-right conspiracy theorist" after identifying her as a politician and businesswoman. The "far-right" component is more about the conspiracies she promotes than her political views in general. While I don't agree with this approach (I think it goes against the guideline that we only list primary occupations), it at least doesn't conflate her primary political occupation with her views.

Like I said, I open to moving the far-right hyperlink to the second sentence. I won't argue against the consensus, but I think that's a reasonable compromise. It would still be high up in the lead and one of the first things people see. Bluerules (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I tend to side with the consensus here. Using this in the lead is an appropriate descriptor and should remain. It’s well cited and a major reason Mastriano is notable. Hyderabad22 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying "far-right" shouldn't be in the lead. I'm saying it shouldn't be in the very first sentence. Mastriano is not notable for being far-right. He is notable for holding state office and being a major party's nominee for being governor. Being "far-right" is important information about his political career, but not why this article exists.

In my opinion, it makes the most sense to include the far-right hyperlink in the third paragraph because that's specifically about his far-right views; instead of immediately labeling him far-right and not explaining his views until later, we keep his views focused into one paragraph that explains why he's far-right. Compare this to Bernie Sanders' article, which doesn't immediately call him an "American socialist politician"; his political views are entirely in the last paragraph. While we can't write articles based on others due to OTHERSTUFF, I think separating the individual's surface details and their political views is a good approach. Bluerules (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with moving the descriptor past the first sentence as suggested. —ADavidB 12:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Although it should be removed entirely unless he self-describes as far right. Javabarbarian (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Far Right is not a correct description.

I do not think using far right is a proper description. That sounds like an editorial not a fact. 134.228.133.240 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If he's an election denier, then he qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

According to whom, you? Remember that Hillary Clinton is an election denier as well. Is she far right?? Javabarbarian (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Did she send a violent mob to storm the capitol? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Did Mastriano? 66.49.112.52 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Not according to the actual Far-right politics wiki page. It describes far-right in the United States context thus:

"In United States politics, the terms "extreme right", "far-right", and "ultra-right" are labels used to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism", such as Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist Movement, the National Alliance, the Joy of Satan Ministries, and the Order of Nine Angles. These far-right groups share conspiracist views of power which are overwhelmingly anti-Semitic and reject pluralist democracy in favour of an organic oligarchy that would unite the perceived homogeneously racial Völkish nation. The far-right in the United States is composed of various neo-fascist, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, and white supremacist organizations and networks who have been known to refer to an "acceleration" of racial conflict through violent means such as assassinations, murders, terrorist attacks, and societal collapse, in order to achieve the building of a white ethnostate."

Not a word in there about denying elections. You can't just throw a new characteristic, especially one that isn't even a defining characteristic., because it suits your dishonesty and bias. 66.49.112.52 (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see Nancy PELOSI labeled as ‘far left’ … in fact I see no other politicians listed as ‘far left’ …. I used to like ‘wickipedia’ but I think it has been bought out like the the rest of the media… 32 billion buys a lot. PjkPA (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably because she isn't "far-left" by any yardstick. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022

Change “far right to Conservative”. Maestría no is not considered Far Right. He’s a Conservative politician. 2600:1007:B020:FDEF:99EC:A45:C072:3E3B (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

He's an election denier. That makes him far-right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides, the description "far-right" is supported, in the first sentence, by four references. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"far right" is an opinion. It should be removed. Javabarbarian (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Those four "references" are all opinion pieces. What a sham this is! Javabarbarian (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus Request Confederate controversy uniform photo

No progress was made on article improvement. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As far as not coming to consensus before including full photo. as an editor i am allowed presume consensus initially, so I replaced the edited photo with the original. and *A* standard for consensus on wikipedia is silence, so to be clear that the current state of the photo, and the photos caption does not have consensus, i will not remain silent, and i will continue to revert misleading edits. I will become silent when the issue is resolved in these comments with third parties. Wikipedia:Silence and consensus The photo provided with controversy section has been edited to not include information relevant to the topic of the page, and to mislead readers. Mastriano, at what is essentially a museum affiliated with the army war college in Carlisle, wore a historical uniform among others wearing historical uniforms; THIS IS UNDENIABLE FACT, sourced from the reliable news Reuters. the controversy is now relevant because the uniform he alone wore is now considered offensive, and "de facto" banned by the army. it is incumbent upon us as unbiased editors that the whole story be conveyed to the readers, to do otherwise would violate wikipedia's neutral point of view by not "representing as far as possible all significant positions" by cropping out the photo we remove the context of the faculty dressing up. we also remove information presented by Reuters; Reuters did not perform a freedom of information act on a segment of a photo, but the whole photo. by cropping the photo we compromise the neutrality point of view of the article. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I believe we need to include the full unedited picture, for the readers. and additionally a caption that reads something along the lines of, "Mastriano (Left) is pictured wearing a Confederate uniform in an Army War College faculty photo taken on April 9, 2014. The picture was taken outside of the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center." The picture provides the entire document reported on and leaked by Reuters for readers to view and the caption answers relevant info on the document. additionally is does not violate any caption policies like someone incorrectly stated earlier. who - mastriano what - wearing a historic confederate uniform where - u.s. army heritage and education center when - April 9, 2014 why - a faculty photo at a museum the alternative photo and caption can what i only assume deliberately hides the context of the faculty, and the reason why the photo was taken. I am a good faith actor. i have occasionally contributed information to this page for the past 9 months, I am willing to compromise to reach consensus. i respect consensus when it exists. i have already changed the caption based on your critique. a complaint earlier about the picture being to small, when the whole photo is present, is valid so i would suggest just making it bigger. I would also suggest a compromise where we have 2 photos, one where the whole picture is present, and another cropped showing mastriano up close. again i will reiterate, i violated no policies by changing the picture, and as I CONTINUE to defend the edits from misleading information, i will be awaiting consensus decision. BreezewoodPA (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC) You're obviously edit warring. You violated a policy. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC) i am allowed to fix damaging edits BreezewoodPA (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC) That reminds me: you are also falsely claiming that good-faith edits are vandalism. You're also an SPA, who seems to be out to whitewash the subject's reputation--that's the only thing you're doing. So that you would claim you "know" Wikipedia policy is kind of rich, especially if you manage to produce hogwash such as "The problem is this Wikipedia article sites the analysis on news events, not the actual reporting", whatever that may mean. Perhaps it's a good idea to stop you from directly editing this article. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC) That is total BS before May and before Mastriano was nominated for gov. There was a general consensus on this article to have the far right and adjective on specific uses of this article. The justification for the change the sources. And at the time there were questionable sources and questionable citations. I completely stand by my comments at the time. If an article reports that mastriano says "..." then the article calls "..." "far right ", the article calling it something is editorialization by the author, that is UNDENIABLE FACT. and I was not going to allow Media Matters as the source you used to create a narrative around his reputation. Additionally since when is his reputation what is written about on Wikipedia. We right the FACTS that can be sourced, we do not say James buchanan was the worst president of all time, we do not write Mohammed ali was the greatest boxer of all time. Article should be reputation neutral. So if you're going to accuse me of being white washing his reputation, than absolutely guilty as charged. BreezewoodPA (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Also since you got me banned from editing ill let you know My alts are just waiting ;) BreezewoodPA (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for admitting to using sock puppet accounts. I suspected that this account was a sock master based on edits made by similar accounts to this and other articles. This is actually a bannable offense so I think with this confession this should be a pretty open and shut case. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BreezewoodPA For anyone that would like to add additional accounts or context. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC) I have never used alts before, BUT I GUARANTEE I WILL IN THE FUTURE. i you weren't being so ignorant and accusing me of being a SPA account and coming with BS reasons why my contributions were wrong, and actually addressing the issues i brought up. @Hyderabad22 you can accuse me all you want, I ahead was already banned yesterday, that why i made that promise to come back;). that being said. has any body here actually gone to the extant to understand my complaints other than what appears to be. i can tell you havent cause your already accused me of being mouthbreathers like engineer005. my rhetoric and contributions are clearly different than these other accounts.I CHALLENGE ANYBODY TO FIND RHETORIC SIMILARITIES BETWEEN BREEZEWOODPA AND ANY OTHER ACCOUNT. do that before you make you accusations @Hyderabad22 So yesterday i was accused of: edit warring, I reverted changes that i was able to make, and justly fixed any malicious edits. i know my edits were acceptable, because they are in part being used as we speak and no one has a problem, and no one wants to address their problem in this talk. i was outrageously accused of vandalism by @Drmies because i defended the the proposition that was the common consensus until MAY that 'far-right' is not Mastrianos defining adjective or attribute that it deserves to be the second adjective on his page, and that the hyperlink is outright misleading. i know this is a reasonable position because Mastianos page did not feature 'far-right' in the first sentence until may, so did his positions change in may or did the editors?, no one has yet to anwser that question. so is it bad faith to argue there is a difference between calling someone a label, and the person actually being that label is it bad faith to argue that we shouldnt hyperlink an article on " Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism" considering the person in the article is proven to not be a Fascist, Nazi, and Falangist i was also accused of being a spa, considering ive made dozen and dozens of contributions too wvu football, the steelers, heinze ketchup ad practices and havnt made an edit on this page since July, i guess im A single issue account if you think i deserved to be banned for these 2 offenses ^^^^^ then chances are you are the one operating in bad faith, see you in the near future all, chances are i will under a different name though =) BreezewoodPA (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC) You've admitted to having sock puppets and being willing to use them, there are multiple SPI's associated with this article around the term "far-right" that have ended in a ban. It's fairly obvious your other accounts were banned and now this main and the other main you use should be banned with SPI. Hopefully checkuser can also get any other accounts you've made. I think this should be a pretty open and shut case. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC) again you dont address any of the issues raised in my contributions. no wander there is a consensus around the far right issue. you ban every person who objects with the wording you dont even address the complaints they raise. yesterday i even corrected someone who tried to remove the far right statement. i never admitted to using alts in the past, i only promised to have them in the future. checkuser wont find any considering they dont exist yet. BreezewoodPA (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC) You stated "My alts are just waiting", you have in fact admitted to having alts for the purpose of a ban evasion. You likely deserve a ban for continued vandalism, sock puppetry and ban evasion. There is no consensus from other accounts when those other accounts are all just your socks stating that the term "far-right hyperlinked" in the lead is inappropriate. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Dude. You're not banned. You haven't made dozens of articles to other articles or on other topics. You keep thinking that this is about what's correct or not--here's the thing, as an administrator, I really don't care, unless it's something blatantly wrong. The point is that you are edit warring, and that's why you ended up on the edit warring board. Your edits are confined, almost exclusively, to that article, which is why I asked for a partial block rather than a full block--you're welcome. All this ranting and yelling, it's just going to lead to an expansion of that block--maybe to this talk page, maybe just a site-wide block. Threatening sock puppetry, that's just dumb. You may recall what Sam Johnson said to Harriet. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC) I'm fairly certain this is more than a threat of sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BreezewoodPA I've opened an investigation and linked to accounts I believe are likely puppets of this sock main. Please feel free to contribute or help with the investigation. Based on the content these accounts like to edit war over (term far-right) I'm fairly convinced this user has multiple accounts they use to evade bans. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Photo

@GeorgeBailey has been adding a photo of Mastriano in military uniform to the infobox. I've reverted and taken to talk page. It gives a false impression that Mastriano is active military when he is not. He is a civilian and a candidate for office. If no other photo exists, then having him in uniform would be fine, but civilian photos of him exist. It's inappropriate to include otherwise. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pennsylvania2Which photo is better? or  ? One is a blurry, low-quality image clipped from a youtube video, and the other is an official portrait of Mastriano from a couple of years ago. You say that putting an old military portrait gives a "false impression" that Mastriano is currently in the military, but that's not really the case. Anybody who reads this article will read the first sentence of this article and read "retired military officer". You don't lose the right to have your military portrait as a representation of you once you leave the military. Jimmy Carter's Wikipedia photo is his presidential portrait, even though there are "civilian photos" of him post-presidency. Other examples of veterans who are ran for office and have their military portrait in the infobox is Daniel Gade (2020 United States Senate election in Virginia), Michael Franken (2022 United States Senate election in Iowa), and Don Bolduc (2022 United States Senate election in New Hampshire). You should reconsider. GeorgeBailey ([[User talk:GeorgeBailey|talk) 19:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A lead photo of him in a military uniform five years ago when he is no longer in the military violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. It is fine in the section about his military career. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As for the other articles, if we have freely licensed photos of those people out of uniform, then the lead images of those articles should be changed as well. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Which part of NPOV does an official portrait violate? GeorgeBailey (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It is non-neutral because it portrays him as a military service member five years after he retired when he is now a politician and we have a recent photo of him campaigning. He is far more notable as a politician than as a soldier, and if he never ran for office, it is highly unlikely that we would have a Wikipedia biography of him. If a person is notable as a soldier, it is appropriate to show them in uniform in the lead. Consider John Glenn, initially famous as an astronaut but who later served 25 years in the US Senate. His lead image is of him as a senator, not in a space suit. Consider Tammy Duckworth who is a combat veteran, double amputee and US Senator. Her lead photo shows her as a senator, rather than in uniform as a helicopter pilot. Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Who wrote this?

Why isn't the author named? How do we know this is true, not exaggerated or just plan slander? Jooniper13 (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You can see all of the people who have edited the page in the History section, and you can verify each statement by clicking on the reference at the end. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

Change Mastriano is a far right candidate to, Mastriano is a Republican candidate. 40.142.212.80 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think the addition of a hyperlinked “far right” in the intro is meant to be political and not informative. It should just say “Republican” because that’s the official party of the subject. If we keep “far right” place in down page. Z1933 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Source https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/senate_bio.cfm?id=1869&mobile_choice=suppress Z1933 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Far right" is informative. Just plain "Republican" is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's opinion and slander is what it is. Javabarbarian (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Is not informative at all. It’s a catch all phrase meant to scare voters. If you click the link he states:

“Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.” That’s not the candidate at all. Z1933 (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Governor Mastriano page prep

I think it’s very important (especially knowing how long it takes to get edits approved here) that we prep for when/if Senator Mastriano becomes Governor Mastriano. Please comment below on next steps. Keep the political commentary to yourself Richinstead (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no "prep" to be done. If he's elected, we'll put that in when it happens. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Richinstead (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Article misrepresented his abortion position

Prior to 24 Oct 2002, the article incorrectly stated "He supports outlawing abortion with no exceptions." The article's sources on his abortion position are

• https://www.inquirer.com/politics/doug-mastriano-governor-christian-nationalism-qanon-20220504.html
• https://whyy.org/articles/doug-mastriano-abortion-restrictions-pa-governor-race/

Neither of these sources say that he supports outlawing abortion with no exceptions. Both sources say something very different: that he supports heartbeat bills.

Heartbeat bills, by definition, are abortion bans which contain an exception that permits abortion prior to the detection of a fetal heartbeat. Many abortions take place prior to this stage of development, so it would be correct to describe this as a "wide" exception.

On 24 Oct I corrected the misrepresentation. On 26 Oct, Pennsylvania2 restored the misrepresentation, with the comment "Not what source says".

Yes, in fact, both of the cited sources do say that he supports heartbeat bills. Please read them carefully. Novel compound (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Added proper citations that represent his stated views on abortion including quotes from him on the issue. Hyderabad22 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

Change "American far right politician" to "American politician" (Politico, NYT, NBC News, and NPR are all left leaning and have bias against Doug) Remove the remarks about "separation of church and state" (they aren't in the constitution and should have no mention on this page) (NYT and AP are both left leaning and aren't unbiased here) Remove QAnon 9/11 line (Politico, Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Independent lean left, New Yorker and Media Matters are Left, Spolight PA article author is right out of the leftist media machines ABC and MSNBC) Remove "national attention" through "August" https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart (source for political leans in media)

All of the Democrat smear points blasted all over his main bio need to be removed to keep this a reliable source of information. Things like "far right" simply shouldn't be there especially since "far left" doesn't appear on Josh Shapiro's bio. Political bias should have no place in editing these articles that voters will be looking to for information, and anytime you use "far anything" it's very off-putting and not remotely fair (or true in the case of this candidate ). I already look at wikipedia through a jaded lens for the most part, but this is blatant political attacking on a candidate and I can't believe it's being just let slide! Do better! Jpweir (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is clearly a contentious change that requires consensus before implementation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Those on the far right tend to label mainstream news media as "leftist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Political science is a serious discipline and there are qualities that can be examined to place a politician somewhere on the spectrum. You say *anytime* we use "far anything" it's "not remotely fair", which is to say that there's no such thing as far-right or far-left. Nonsense. You yourself are placing outlets on the spectrum, labeling them leftist, so clearly you believe the spectrum is a real and identifiable thing. What does Josh Shapiro have to do with it? They aren't automatically polar opposites just because they're running against each other, they actually happen to be individual humans with their own ideas and platforms. What a hyperpartisan way of looking at the world. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think the addition of a hyperlinked “far right” in the intro is meant to be political and not informative. It should just say “Republican” because that’s the official party of the subject. If we keep “far right” place in down page. Z1933 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pressed to find sourcing that demonstrates his views are mainstream Republican. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

He’s THE Republican nominee. That makes him an official Republican. Z1933 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is contesting that is *is* a Republican. Just that Republicans have a range of views. The New Yorker says "Mastriano is, by almost any measure, one of the most extreme candidates currently running for office." 25stargeneral (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That article was written by Eliza Griswold, a left leaning democrat. Also, the point is that he’s the Republican nominee, that’s pretty mainstream, so that’s how ge should be described politically, as a Republican. Far right, middle, left, are meaningless and totally subjective. Further, “far-right” is a lazy catch all phrase. Simply click the link, it lists descriptions of neo-nazis, etc. Clearly that’s not his position, no media sources would describe him as such or they would be sued, so it’s misinformation. Z1933 (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

“Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.” That’s not the candidate at all. Z1933 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The shoe fits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the above user Z1933 has been blocked as a sock of Richinstead. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

Eliminate “far-right” in first sentence. 204.116.234.12 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No. We document what reliable sources say, and they document that he is in fact far-right. If you don't recognize that as being true, you need to learn more about these issues and which side you're supporting. The fact that Trump studied Hitler's methods and had his speeches on his bedside table has consequences for everyone. This is just one example. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Prosentage point loss in lead

For example there is none of this in the wikipedia for mehmed oz or for democratic politicians like charlie crist 109.240.91.198 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that any article here uses the word "prosentage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)