Talk:John Fetterman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biographical Information

Is there a biography of Fetterman somewhere? I couldn't find anything as simple as his birthday. --TimD (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Physical Threats Controversy

09:45 John Fetterman (D) makes a physical threat toward a non Democrat guest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsJ3fmvHgyU 69.250.38.56 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is he still Mayor?

I went to the Bradford PA website, and he is not listed as Mayor. Has he reached term limits, defeated, or decided not to run? --Lbeaumont (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oops!, my bad, I confused Bradford PA with Braddock PA. --Lbeaumont (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Fetterman (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709192536/http://www.rbr.com/media-news/advertising/25353.html to http://www.rbr.com/media-news/advertising/25353.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move over the dab (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

---

John Fetterman (politician) → John Fetterman – This is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by page views and WP:TWODABS; John Fetterman (reporter) receives little more than 1 view a day. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This Fetterman was probably the primary topic back when he got press as the mayor of Braddock. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The dab page is getting 36 views per day, no more than 2 of whom want the reporter. Station1 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support clear primary topic as others have stated. DemonDays64 (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC) {[ppor}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questionable removal from Lt Governorship

Under very strange shenanigans in the PA legislature, Fetterman was physically removed from his position as the Republican led group also refused to recognize the victory of a Democratic representative. This incident made national news, in part because of Fetterman's high profile following the 2020 presidential election and a section should be added to this article to address this.2601:182:4381:E60:D93:9F1E:ED15:6077 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Claims of election

Claims of election fraud were never proven false. The lawful attempts of unbiased investigation were unlawfully blocked. 2001:5B0:49DA:3638:2D0F:B78E:9678:41E5 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

Who decided that Trump's claim of election fraud in Pennsylvania is false? The word "false" needs to be removed. 73.41.8.85 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because it is false. Andre🚐 03:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

undergraduate work?

The article says he graduated from Harvard with a master's. Normally, you need a bachelor's to enroll in a master's program. Where did he go as an undergraduate?211.225.34.170 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he attended Albright College in Pennsylvania which has an acceptance rate of 82%. Source: https://billypenn.com/2015/09/21/john-fetterman-for-senate-why-a-6-foot-8-tatted-up-harvard-grad-from-western-pa-is-running/ Richinstead (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I also found that he earned an MBA from UConn in 1993. This is new and should be added to the page. Source: https://alumni.business.uconn.edu/2019/02/04/john-k-fetterman-93-mba/ Richinstead (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, both are listed. Richinstead (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

His parents, Karl Fetterman and Susan Fetterman

This article should include one, two or a few sentences about his parents. I read this article, then I was interested to search for their information because his 2016 financial disclosure for us senate race shows that he had an income of 4,000. Then, he latter on that financial form, put that even though not required, but for transparency, that his parents have gifted his family money as his public servant income at that time was only 4k. His parents gifted him about 27k in 2015. This ref is in the article already:

Thus, I was interested in knowing how his parents got their money. It isn't mentioned in the article that Karl Fetterman owns "Kling Insurance brokerage." His father came to own that company after starting as a non-owner employee there. That is financial information about his parents either one or both. In addition, his parents and his brother were or are republicans.

Again, that financial source information was of interest to me, it would likely be of interest to others, and I had to do a few google searches rather than being able to find it in this article. For, 2014-2015, his income as a public servant and mayor, was 4k, 3.6k came from 150 a month mayorship. In 2015, his parents gifted him 27k.

In addition to his parents, that financial source for that two years, it could be framed that he is a public servant. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in this interview he says, "I grew up in York, in a conservative Republican household."

Source: https://inthesetimes.com/article/john-fetterman-braddock-mayor-the-coolest-populist-in-america-senate-run Richinstead (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Why is there no mention of him chasing and holding an innocent black man with a shotgun in 2013?

Is this not relevant as controversial? 174.60.190.127 (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's in the article under the section "Shotgun incident". Marquardtika (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems, he was absolutely right to go against even a jogger with a loaded, unsecured (the only way, really) shotgun, when he thought his property was endangered or a crime had been committed. But why does this not hold for other people?--Ralfdetlef (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Need to add “far left” to the lead

Far left is a distinguishing characteristic and it needs to be included in the lead. Richinstead (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd really suggest this isn't the hill you want to lie on - the last editor to try add "far-left" to the lead (also WP:POINTY editing in response to the Mastriano article) ended up getting blocked from editing. There's no significant coverage in reliable sources out there that suggests Fetterman is on the far-left. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

calling another editor a liar certainly falls afoul of the civility policy but as long as we are doing it, it appears that you have lied above by claiming no significant coverage of Fetterman's leftism. given the numerous high quality sources below, perhaps the editor who was blocked should be unblocked. thank you @Richinstead: for finding the sources for the far-left left-leaning characterization, i will try to add it. :^) .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC) edited .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You’ve misinterpreted me here. I’m well aware of the civility guidelines, and when I used the phrase about “a hill to lie on”, I meant it in the sense of lying down, rather than accusing the editor of telling lies. The actual vernacular phrase is “a hill to die on” but I felt that may come across too harsh. Anyway, I digress. There’s two articles in total from RS which outright refer to Fetterman as being “left-leaning” and given the amount of articles about the guy which don’t refer to him as thus, including it would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to an op-ed, imo. To give a similar example, there’s a few sources that refer to Matt Gaetz as far-right, but because the majority of sources don’t call him that, it’s not included as it would be undue to do so. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 07:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You may have meant hill to die on~TPW 19:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

So if I found a source you would actually allow it? Is that a promise? Richinstead (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's not a case of me "allowing" anything (hence why I can't promise anything), but to add anything to a WP:BLP, it needs to be well backed up by sources. For a claim like that it would need multiple independent reliable sources stating this in journalistic voice (akin to the far-right claim on the pages for Marjorie Taylor Greene and Doug Mastriano), and would need to be demonstrated that the vast majority of sources refer to him as such - which they don't. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Conservatives seemed to be called more names by the media, so sources are harder to come by.

Let's go with the softer term "left-leaning" for now until more reporting is done on him. Here are three credible sources.

Source 1, "left-leaning," New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/18/us/politics/john-fetterman-the-left-leaning-pennsylvania-politician-in-gym-clothes.html

Source 2, "left-leaning Democrat," Politico, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/16/john-fetterman-profile-2022-senate-politics-pennsylvania-481259

Source 3, "ascendant left," Pittsburgh Post Gazette, https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2021/03/07/Pennsylvania-2022-Democratic-Senate-primary-john-fetterman-malcolm-kenyatta/stories/202103020114

Thanks! Richinstead (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Obesity, stroke, major health issues

We should add that he just suffered a stroke and has major health issues due to his weight

https://whyy.org/articles/campaign-pennsylvania-lt-gov-john-fetterman-democrat-running-for-senate-had-stroke/ Richinstead (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This is already mentioned under personal life. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Richinstead (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This reads very one-sided. It says that he did not suffer cognitive damage. However, there is no mention that he has ongoing issues due to the stroke. In his words, he has trouble speaking and is receiving speech therapy. He also has lost, at least temporarily, the ability to fluently process speech auditorily, to the extent that he requires captions of people speaking to him to understand what they are saying. When an NBC reporter asked him what it was like to have trouble finding correct words when speaking, he answered "I don't think it was hard, it was just about having to be thinking more uh, slower, to just understand. And sometimes that's just kinda the processing that happens."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIRxtewucH4\ Sysiphis (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The NBC report drew criticism[1] “This is just nonsense,” business reporter and podcaster Kara Swisher, who had a stroke herself in 2011, said on Twitter. “Maybe this reporter is just bad at small talk.” Swisher recently conducted an interview with Fetterman for her podcast and said, “I was really quite impressed with how well he’s doing. Everyone can judge for themselves.” Swisher has called attacks on Fetterman because of his health “appalling.” A New York magazine reporter, Rebecca Traister, who interviewed the candidate for a cover story titled “The Vulnerability of John Fetterman,” tweeted that his “comprehension is not at all impaired. He understands everything. It’s just that he reads it and responds in real time ... It’s a hearing/auditory challenge.” Andre🚐 04:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not quoting the opinions of the journalist who conducted the interview, I am quoting what Fetterman said in that interview. The opinion of Kara Swisher, business reporter and podcaster, and Rebecca Traister, New York magazine reporter, cannot be counted as overriding the speech, auditory processing, and slower thinking issues mentioned by Fetterman himself.

Suggested addition, coming after "Doctors informed Fetterman that he did not suffer cognitive damage, and a full recovery from the stroke is expected":

In an interview in October 2022, Fetterman explained that after his stroke he now has trouble understanding speech due to auditory processing issues, and uses captioning to understand. He is also receiving speech therapy. When asked what it was like to have trouble finding correct words when speaking, he answered "I don't think it was hard, it was just about having to be thinking more slower, to just understand. And sometimes that's just kinda the processing that happens." Sysiphis (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

UPMC Dr. Clifford Chen said Fetterman "is recovering well" and he "has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office. ... Worries about an auditory processing disorder as a result of the stroke have become a talking point[2] I say stick with the medical opinions that say his recovery is going as expected and not go with a political hit job on the benefit of his opponent. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu and I oppose what Sysiphis is proposing Andre🚐 16:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not stating a contradicting medical opinion or political commentary, I am stating dry facts and quotations from Fetterman during an interview with a Reliable Source. He said himself he has issues with auditory processing, speech, and thinking slower. He showed and described how he requires captioning to understand speech. He said he was undergoing speech therapy. His political opponents talking about something does not make it untrue or irrelevant. And these are his words. Is Fetterman doing a political hit job on himself? This standard is not being adhered to for his opponent anyway. Just for comparison, in the Mehmet Oz article we have the following:

On August 15, 2022, a campaign video from April of Oz shopping in a grocery store went viral. In the video, Oz says that he is shopping for produce to make crudités, and says that the perceived high prices are the fault of President Joe Biden. The video was widely ridiculed on social media and became the subject of media coverage. It was filmed at a Redner's Warehouse market, which Oz mistakenly identifies as a "Wegner's". Oz responded to criticism over the video, noting that when creating it, "I was exhausted. When you're campaigning 18 hours a day, I've gotten my kids' names wrong, as well. I don't think that's a measure of someone's ability to lead the commonwealth."

How can Oz misstating the name of a grocery store be relevant enough to be given a few lines but these facts about Fetterman's ongoing medical issues with missing words cannot? To remove these lines, does Dr. Oz need his personal doctor to put out a report stating that it's his opinion that Oz can still work at his full capacity despite this name slip-up here, and then hope that the New York Times acknowledges it? The letter you cite from Dr. Clifford Chen, Fetterman's doctor, also mentions some of the same things I am mentioning which you seem to be reluctant to include, namely that he "continues to exhibit symptoms of an auditory processing disorder", and that he occasionally will "miss words which seems like he doesn't hear the word but actually it is not processed properly", and that he is attending speech therapy. Keep in mind, the article currently has absolutely no mention of any of these issues. The only treatment given is the very positive characterization from his doctors, put out by the Fetterman campaign. And these facts and words stated by Fetterman himself are not necessarily a refutation of his doctors' opinions, but they do give relevant additional context.

At the risk of this article looking like a political puff job, these facts should be included.

https://johnfetterman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/JKF-Health-Letter-10.15-.pdf Sysiphis (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't WP:OTHERSTUFF. Oz campaign gaffes may seem insignificant but become defining parts of the campaign. Fetterman's current functioning will change. We can note how his recovery is going but without this WP:RECENTISM filter. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

At the very least we should mention that he said the stroke affected his ability to hear, speak, and think. Combined with his doctors' expectation that this will improve with time we will have a more balanced and contextualized viewpoint of the effects of his stroke. The fact that the candidate had a stroke and was in the hospital for 9 days is deemed relevant. Why is the fact that it resulted in noticeable medical issues related to communication, that he candidly admitted to at the time, not relevant? The condition he was put in (temporary or not, as it remains to be seen) as a result is obviously a significant and defining part of his campaign, and cannot be ignored, regardless of who says the condition is expected to improve with time. If we are trying to avoid Recentism, we might say that he suffered these issues as a result of the stroke, and also that his doctors stated that he was recovering and they expected him to continue to do so. If in the future the issues subside completely, then great, an edit will probably be made to reflect his full recovery. But it wouldn't change the fact that at the time of his campaign he talked about the issues he was experiencing then. Yes, his current functioning will probably change, but the state of his functioning during his Senate race will always be noteworthy, and it doesn't make sense to give the expectation at that time of his future functioning more focus than the functioning he in fact exhibited at that time. Sysiphis (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to revise this say "it doesn't make sense to give the expectation at that time of his future functioning exclusive focus over the functioning he in fact exhibited at that time." Sysiphis (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"the stroke affected his ability to hear, speak, and think" No, no RS said it affected his ability to think. Just an auditory processing problem and occasionally using the wrong word or mixing up a sentence. His ability to think is intact. Andre🚐 21:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You do not know if his ability to think is intact. His doctors say it is. NBC is an RS, and John Fetterman speaking during that interview is a primary source when talking about his own issues. When asked what it was like to have trouble finding correct words when speaking, he answered "I don't think it was hard, it was just about having to be thinking more, uh, slower, to just understand. And sometimes that's just kinda the processing that happens". Readers can decide how to interpret this, but it is a rather neutral stating of what was said. You earlier posted an article criticizing that interview, but the part being criticized was the interviewer's comment that Fetterman didn't seem like he understood questions without the captioning:

Burns said that when the captioning device was off, “it wasn’t clear he was understanding our conversation.” “This is just nonsense,” business reporter and podcaster Kara Swisher, who had a stroke herself in 2011, said on Twitter. “Maybe this reporter is just bad at small talk.”

Even if we did not include the quote about him thinking slower, or the interviewer's impressions of him, the rest about the auditory and speech problems and the need for a captioning device are still totally ignored, and focus is only being given to his expected but still potential recovery. I am skeptical that these statements should be included at all because WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. His doctors may in this case constitute an RS, although probably a little biased, but as your article stated:

Problems with understanding and using language are common in recovering stroke victims, said Kevin Sheth, director of the Yale University Center for Brain and Mind Health. Some completely recover, some have continued impairments, he said.

But if it is needed to balance the viewpoint in combination with other facts I have cited then it would seem reasonable. Sysiphis (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a big nope, you're POV pushing. We write what the RS say, you're spinning it to imply things not in the source. Please drop it, it's a non-starter & dead on arrival. You do not know if his ability to think is intact. BLPvio conspiracy peddling. as your article stated: Problems with understanding and using language are common in recovering stroke victims You're looking to imply that Fetterman's not all there, but that's not what the sources say about him. Andre🚐 22:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I would appreciate it if you abided by WP:GOODFAITH. I am not POV pushing, or spinning things, or conspiracy peddling, or trying to imply things that are not in the source. Please do not ascribe motives to me. Here are facts, as stated by either an RS, Fetterman himself, or his personal doctor.

Fact: Fetterman has issues with auditory processing.

Fact: Fetterman uses a captioning device to understand speech.

Fact: Fetterman has issues with finding the correct words when speaking.

Fact: Fetterman has received speech therapy regularly since the stroke.

Sources: [3]During the interview, Fetterman occasionally stuttered and had trouble finding words. He responded to oral questions after reading captions on a computer screen. “I sometimes will hear things in a way that’s not perfectly clear. So I use captioning so I’m able to see what you’re saying on the captioning,” Fetterman said.

...

Fetterman, acknowledging the challenges he still faces, added: “But it gets much, much better where I take in a lot. But to be precise, I use captioning, so that’s really the maijing — that’s the major challenge. And every now and then I’ll miss a word. Every now and then. Or sometimes I’ll maybe mush two words together. But as long as I have captioning, I’m able to understand exactly what’s being asked.”

...

At one point, he struggled to articulate the word “empathetic” — toggling between the correct pronunciation and “emphetic” — and then pointed to that as an example of the effect of the stroke. Asked about those moments, Fetterman said searching for language is not a difficult experience. “No, I don’t think it was hard. It was just about having to be thinking more, uh, sl, uh — slower — to just understand and that sometimes that’s kind of the processing that happens,” Fetterman said.

[4]His speech was normal and he continues to exhibit symptoms of an auditory processing disorder which can come across as hearing difficulty. Occasional words he will ‘miss,’ which seems like he doesn’t hear the word but it is actually not processed properly. His hearing of sound such as music is not affected. His communication is significantly improved compared to his first visit assisted by speech therapy which he has attended on a regular basis since the stroke. Sysiphis (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that this section be updated with details about Fetterman's health following his stroke, including his auditory processing issue, speech issues, attendance of speech therapy, and reliance on closed captioning. My Reliable Sources for these claims are a televised NBC interview (and accompanying article) of Fetterman where he personally states each claim, and a medical report from his primary care physician. I will add another source, a New York Times article about the October 25th debate which mentions the lingering effects of his stroke. These are quite notable details to be left out.

[5]The Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania will use closed captioning to assist with the after effects of a stroke.

...

The debate, the first and only in a race that could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate, will look different than any other. Two 70-inch monitors above the heads of the moderators — scrolling the text of their questions, as well as transcribing the answers, attacks and ripostes of the Republican, Dr. Mehmet Oz — will be visible to TV watchers whenever a camera pans to the moderators. Mr. Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor, needs the accommodations because the stroke he had in May left him with an auditory processing disorder, a condition that affects the brain’s ability to filter and interpret sounds, his primary care doctor said last week. He uses closed captioning to follow conversations. Sometimes his speech is halting. Sometimes he stumbles over his words. But he has “no work restrictions,” the doctor said.

Sysiphis (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The article already covers his stroke and the related issues. I don't find your call for detail and "balance" to be well-founded. Others are free to help you but I do not agree with the way you wish to expand the article. It is likely that there will be additional details added to the article about the whole thing soon, as more is written about it, but WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM on the level of detail you're looking for. Andre🚐 20:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What is not well-founded? Can you explain why these sources are not reliable enough? For some reason it is fine that the article have detail regarding his recent pacemaker and defibrillator insertion, and also not one but two positive prognosis statements (that Doctors informed [him] that he did not suffer cognitive damage, and a full recovery from the stroke is expected, and He said Fetterman was "well compensated and stable" and that "If he takes his medications, eats healthy and exercises, he'll be fine") but it's not fine to mention his recent issues with auditory processing and speech, also resulting from the stroke, and which are visibly apparent unlike the heart issues, and which are facts and not predictions (WP:CRYSTALBALL). This is conspicuous. These dry facts are well-sourced and no more detailed than the other related issues mentioned. Sysiphis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sysiphis, I reverted your edits to the article. It is pretty obvious that your proposals do not find consensus here. Please don't go edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do I need the consensus of Wikipedia editors?

WP:DUE Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

This is not even a matter of majority viewpoint. These are just facts. But if there is a majority of RS's that I am not aware of that say he has not been receiving speech therapy, he does not have an auditory processing disorder, or can somehow refute that he said he sometimes mixes up words because of the stroke, then I would be interested to see them.

My edit had three sentences.

"As a result of the stroke, Fetterman developed an auditory processing disorder which led to him requiring closed captioning to understand speech."

He talks about this at length in his NBC interview.

"In an NBC interview in October, he stated that mixing up words was an example of the symptoms he was experiencing."

The verbatim quote he made in this interview was: I always thought I was pretty empathetic, uh, uh, emphetic, uh, I think I was very, excuse me, empathetic, you know that's an example of the stroke, empathetic. I always thought I was very empathetic before having a stroke. The article states this like so: At one point, he struggled to articulate the word “empathetic” — toggling between the correct pronunciation and “emphetic” — and then pointed to that as an example of the effect of the stroke.

"He has attended speech therapy regularly since his stroke."

This is from the medical report by his primary care physician, which is posted on the johnfetterman.com website. The exact quote is His communication is significantly improved compared to his first visit assisted by speech therapy which he has attended on a regular basis since the stroke. Do I need to attribute this like "Fetterman's primary care physician said..."?

Can someone explain why any of these sources are not reliable, or how the proposed changes are not supported by these sources? Sysiphis (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Andre🚐 15:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of this information. It's undue weight for a BLP. I am sure there will be suitable sources to discuss this issue in a few days or weeks but we don't need to race to include it yet - let's wait and see how it plays out. Also, you need to be careful about accusing people of things that they deny in a BLP. We have to hew closely to what the sources say and give appropriate distance and weight to BLP. Andre🚐 18:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need to wait a few days or weeks? The event and resulting health effects happened almost 5 months ago, it would not be "racing" to include this information. We don't need to wait. And suitable is not the standard we go by for sources, it's reliable, and that they are. If not, say how. You say I need "consensus", but I don't, the sources already bear out the relevance and prevalence of this information. You say the weight is inappropriate, but this is unpersuasive given that virtually every time Fetterman has spoken publicly since his stroke he has addressed his ongoing symptoms resulting from it, and it is acknowledged by RS's. In fact he usually opens up with it, even calling it the [6]"elephant in the room". And other medical information at an even greater level of detail is already included in the section, including two WP:CRYSTALBALL positive prognosis statements.

If you want to say "his campaign has denied he has aphasia" is an accusation then revert that part and we can talk about it. But the information about his auditory processing disorder and attendance of speech therapy needs to stay. Sysiphis (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy here on Wikipedia. I do indeed say that you inserted material into the BLP. I didn't say this topic cannot be described in the article, but there's a lot more noise and heat than light in your edits. Feel free to try again or better yet propose some text that is actually NPOV about this. Andre🚐 20:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are two statements I would like to include.

"As a result of the stroke, Fetterman developed an auditory processing disorder which led to him requiring closed captioning to understand speech precisely."

"He attended speech therapy regularly following his stroke."

Can you elaborate about what is not NPOV or what is more noise and heat than light in these statements? Sysiphis (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

How about this:

As a result of the stroke, Fetterman developed an auditory processing disorder which affects his ability to filter or interpret sounds. To compensate for this, he uses an assistive closed captioning device to read speech in real-time to respond to it better. Language issues like those shown by Fetterman are generally independent from impact on cognitive abilities. Fetterman's doctors say he speaks intelligently without cognitive deficits. He attended speech therapy regularly following his stroke[7][8][9] Andre🚐 20:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is overly protective and extremely general. There is quite a lot of nuance on the subject of whether "generally" language issues are independent of cognitive abilities following a stroke. It depends on many factors, and no one but he and his doctors have detailed information the extent of his brain damage.[10] The only reliable sources in this case can be the properly attributed words of him and his doctors. This also makes it sound like without the captioning device he responds adequately, and only uses the closed captioning to be crystal clear, but sources disagree on that. And he has said and demonstrated on multiple occasions that it has also affected his speech, like when he mixes up or mushes words, and sources have said this as well. [11]John Fetterman ... still struggles to understand what he hears and to speak clearly following a stroke in May. Sysiphis (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're still just grasping at straws here. The sources you've offered seem to generally support what I've written. What source says he has brain damage beyond the auditory processing issue? And what nuance on the cognitive abilities question? I pulled that straight out of the material. What sources are disagreeing? Andre🚐 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying he certainly had cognitive damage beyond his hearing/speech abilities. I'm saying it is overly protective and even rash to make the claim that "Language issues like those shown by Fetterman are generally independent from impact on cognitive abilities". It's a big "depends", on information that we currently don't have. [12]Dr. Kevin Sheth, the founding chief of the Division of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology at the Yale School of Medicine, also says that just because Fetterman is experiencing difficulties with speech, that doesn’t mean he is having other cognitive issues. “If you have a blockage in the blood vessels that supplies the part of the brain that plays an influential role in language, then you’re going to have trouble with language,” Sheth says. ... The deficits that you have depend on the part of the brain that’s downstream from where the blockage in the blood supply was.” The only sources with the specific knowledge needed to make anything but the most general of statements are him, his campaign, and his doctors, and given the potential conflict of interest and bias from them it is prudent that their words be properly attributed, especially when the claim could be seen to be self-serving. Sysiphis (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, your source is using language that conveys a "not necessarily" tone, not a "usually" or "generally" tone. [13] language skills following a stroke are often separate from any potential impact on someone’s cognitive abilities ... in many instances, the way a person sounds is not indicative of what their cognitive capability is ... Even if someone is having trouble retrieving words or names, a person’s intelligence can still be intact ... People can have all different kinds of neurologic impairments, and it doesn’t mean necessarily that they have a problem with thinking Sysiphis (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Often = usually or generally. If you prefer, I'll change it to "often." As far as potentially self-serving or bias, that is not the way here. We are supposed to protect articles from innuendo and fear, uncertainty, and doubt POV-pushing such as the kind you are doing here. Check WP:BLP. The sources are very clear on this. Andre🚐 21:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/often#synonyms No it does not.

And what POV am I pushing? I did not get an answer about what was not NPOV or what was "more noise and heat than light" in my statements, only a revised and biased version. So, what is the innuendo in the following statements?

"As a result of the stroke, Fetterman developed an auditory processing disorder which led to him requiring closed captioning to understand speech precisely."

"He attended speech therapy regularly following his stroke."

WP:BLPSTYLEuse clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

Where does it say in WP:BLP that preventing FUD is more important than preventing self-serving bias? Of course there will be uncertainty. We can't be certain about everything, and we can't present opinions as doubtless facts. Sysiphis (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You've been inserting statements implying that Fetterman's cognition could be affected when in fact we have the opposite statement from doctors. BLP says we need to protect living people from unsubstantiated allegations such as those you are insinuating. Andre🚐 22:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Which statement in my edit implied or insinuated that Fetterman's cognition could be affected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Fetterman&diff=1118485277&oldid=1118447595 Sysiphis (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Your statements here on the talk page imply it. Andre🚐 23:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is not the article. Which statement in my article edit implied or insinuated that Fetterman's cognition could be affected? Sysiphis (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP applies to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. There's no evidence that Fetterman's cognition is impaired, and all of the statements about him from the campaign and doctors say it is not, so it's a BLP violation unless you have a source stating it is impaired. Andre🚐 23:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That's good, because I'm not now nor was I ever asserting that he is cognitively impaired. Even in my first post here, I was only commenting that it is one-sided to say he suffered no cognitive damage but not mention any of the neurological conditions he did suffer. I have asked you to WP:GOODFAITH. The reason I thought his ability to think deserved mention is because NBC literally quoted him as saying It was just about having to be thinking more, uh, sl, uh — slower — to just understand and that sometimes that’s kind of the processing that happens”, but I did not include that in my article edit anyway. I hope this can finally put the issue to bed.

So, since the article edit did not imply any of the things you are talking about, what are you saying it implied then? Sysiphis (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's another source [14] It’s possible that Fetterman will continue to struggle with processing, but it shouldn’t be viewed as a proxy for his cognition or thinking Andre🚐 22:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That is another "not necessarily" toned statement. Sysiphis (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Auditory processing isn't a proxy for cognition according to doctors watching Fetterman. He speaks intelligently and they have told him his brain isn't completely damaged and he will recover. Andre🚐 23:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Great. On the topic of his cognition we have "Doctors informed Fetterman that he did not suffer cognitive damage, and a full recovery from the stroke is expected", but I would change this to "and they expect a full recovery from the stroke". Proper attribution. It's not like all doctors could expect that, only doctors that have examined him. Sysiphis (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I second Andrevan's procedural point here. Sysiphis, you'll know when it's appropriate to restore the material because you'll see multiple other editors affirm their support for it. On the content itself, I think more mention of the aftermath of Fetterman's stroke is due. A good starting point would be a collection of the best sources on the topic and then some wordsmithing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at adding some of the material, please take a look at my latest couple of edits and let me know your thoughts and feedback. Andre🚐 20:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Good at a glance. Will be a while before I can fully review. First instinct is that tightening the length would be good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think it could be tightened up more. Thanks Andre🚐 20:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the claim that Language issues like those shown by Fetterman are often independent from cognitive abilities, and language abilities are not a proxy for thinking. Not only is this statement overly general and vague to the point of obvious dubiousness, but it serves no purpose other than to rehabilitate the image of his condition. We would find it very biased if an article on someone said they were arrested for robbery and the next statement was "people are often arrested for crimes they have no connection with". The language affects his ability to filter or interpret sounds is also general and imprecise. It's not all sounds. In Dr. Chen's medical report, he states His hearing of sound such as music is not affected. Better to talk about in terms of how it is described by the closest sources. Fetterman used the language yeah, that auditory processing, where I'll hear someone speaking, but sometimes it'll be precise on what exactly that they're saying and as long as I have captioning, I’m able to understand exactly what’s being asked. The statement Fetterman's doctors say he speaks intelligently without cognitive deficits is redundant. Also tightened it up.

(Responding to unsigned comment by Sysiphis) I don't really agree with your logic, but it seems a reasonable enough compromise to let the edit stand. Andre🚐 21:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

@BBQboffin, Pennsylvania2, Davefelmer, and Marquardtika:, I see you all edit warring on this page and not discussing. Cut it out before I lock the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh, what? Davefelmer repeatedly deleted content from the page, which was in turn restored by three different editors (including myself). There is one person engaged in an edit war, and if he wants to build consensus for his change, which so far no one else has supported, he should start a talk page discussion. Marquardtika (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

One person can't edit war against themselves. You took part with one revert. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Photoshopped photo?

Please remove the photoshopped photo of John showing a disfigured face. 2600:1016:B00D:6EFE:183A:E80:83C4:B096 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Board of Pardons/Miyares incident

The prior version of the article refers to the Board of Pardons "holding the keys" to releasing Miyares, sourced to the Penn Star article, which quotes Conor Lamb, Fetterman's primary opponent who lost the primary. I trimmed it because the anon user had a reverted edit which disputes the "holding the keys" statement. I'm not sure if anon editor is correct, but I think it's undue weight to Lamb's assertion that Fetterman "holds the keys." The whole section about the dispute is probably a little too long giving undue weight. Andrevan@ 01:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the readdition of the content by anon editor. It was sourced to a PA gov website. I think we need a secondary source for this or leave it trimmed. Andrevan@ 19:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem is it is very clear in the source that Conor Lamb think Fetterman has the power to release him because he is a member of state board of pardons:"He added that Fetterman, who serves as the chair of the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, is one of the people who “holds the keys” to release him.". while the institute that can release Miyares is Parole Board "Miyares could be eligible for parole as soon as June, although he was denied release in November by a parole board that cited “reported misconducts” And they are seperate from each other . So Lamb's attack do not stand whch should be shown here or reader will think the attack is true. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently the last sentences read: In 2021, Miyares, who at the time was serving prison time for armed assault and kidnapping, wrote that Fetterman had "lied about everything" that happened during the incident, but had "done far more good than that one bad act" and, "should not be defined by it", and hoped he would win the Senate race. Fetterman's political opponents have questioned the sincerity of Miyares' statement forgiving Fetterman. I deleted the part which quoted Lamb's attack verbatim which I agree is undue weight to Lamb, but I also don't know given the information you have here we can make the affirmative statement that Lamb is wrong either. Currently it doesn't get into that. Andrevan@ 19:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you think the information i have here is not enough to make affirmative statement I think the best way is to list those facts about this attack in a neutral way and let readers decide what the believe. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As to me I would prefer delete the whole untrue attack. But if you think it should not be deleted at least allow showing the truth. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct, "list those facts about this attack in a neutral way" is the goal here per WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, etc. Take a look at the text now and let me know if it sounds better. I trimmed and copyedited it a bit more. Andrevan@ 20:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Much better, though for the attack part I think the proofs that shows the attack line do not stand need to be shown here. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Another user reverted my edit in which I deleted the clause noting Miyares was serving time in prison, with the edit summary being that it's notable because Fetterman served on the Board of Pardons at the time. The article doesn't state this at this time; yet it still contains the clause noting Miyares was serving time in prison. Either state in the article why this is relevant in a manner that indicates whatever dynamic makes this important, or remove it completely. As far as I can tell by reading the current text, Miyares had done nothing wrong in the Fetterman incident; as such, unless his incarceration is relevant for some specific reason, mentioning it only serves as poisoning the well to dismiss Miyares's credibility. John Moser (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That seems fair, have so done. Andre🚐 05:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I undid the Pennsylvania2 change, I think we need another source besides Lamb for the explanation of the Board of Pardons rather than simply repeating that. Andrevan@ 22:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, and am convinced by your argument. The notion that Miyares would actually receive a pardon is unlikely, if not exceptional, so the notion that Fetterman actually "holds the keys" to his release is dubious. BBQboffin (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Was not able to edit article

I wanted to add a wikilink to this article, but was prevented from doing so since it seems to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been protected to stop the frequent vandalism. You can request your edit and then a registered user with enough edits and time can do it. Andre🚐 00:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The misleading claim that he weighs in at some 250 lbs. needs to be challenged and corrected Joseph1158 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

So this is an issue of undue weight? :) The 250 number (which is not explicit on the page) comes from an article saying he was 400 lbs and lost 150 lbs in 2018. If there's a more up-to-date number, we'd need a source for that, and then also some rationale as for why it's important to include it. BBQboffin (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

False claims link

A link to Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election is piped to "false claims of election fraud". I've restored the word "false" a couple of times after it was removed, as the first three paragraphs of the linked article appear to back up that phrasing. However, I thought I'd better pre-empt any edit war by checking whether this is the consensus. - Ttwaring (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It is, on every page that refers to Trump's false claims of election fraud. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Going to file a RPP request shortly. It's becoming a painful task to have to revert this over and over. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are they considered to be false claims when the same is not said about Hillary’s claims of fraud in 2016 or Stacey Abrams OPINION that the election was stolen from them. Unproven should be the claim not false which relies on facts not opinions. Jogershok (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? This is the JOHN FETTERMAN article. I don't believe it mentions Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams. Andre🚐 23:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

"...pushing back on President Donald Trump's false claims of election fraud in Pennsylvania."

Request removal of, "false." The application of, "false," here is presumptive and perjorative. Wikipedia should be stating objective facts, not editorializing and passing opinions as facts. 2603:8001:5B01:68A5:F49E:A6CF:9DCB:5BD9 (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The claims are false, why would we omit that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

As mayor of Braddock, Pa., John Fetterman ordered a police officer to dig up dirt on one of his political rivals, according to a town solicitor whom Fetterman later fired.

In a heated 2009 mayoral campaign, Braddock solicitor Lawrence Shields accused Fetterman of "abuse of your mayoral authority" for ordering a Braddock cop to obtain a police report from a 2004 domestic incident involving Fetterman’s challenger, Jayme Cox. Braddock city council members called for Fetterman’s arrest for violating state laws regarding the handling of criminal information in cases where charges are dropped.

Three years later, Fetterman cast the tie-breaking vote—his only vote in 13 years as Braddock mayor—to fire Shields as solicitor, purportedly to save money in the borough’s budget. Fetterman said he was an "enthusiastic yes" in favor of ousting Shields. Shields and Fetterman’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment about whether the earlier criticism of Fetterman was a factor in Shields’s firing.

<ref>https://freebeacon.com/democrats/abuse-of-your-mayoral-authority-fetterman-allegedly-ordered-cop-to-dig-up-dirt-on-political-rival/<ref>

TheBTLPodcast (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)TheBTLPodcastTheBTLPodcast (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC) TheBTLPodcast (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done a conservative website that specifically has a section for "Democrats" to post entirely about their scandals is not a reliable source. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

We have a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a May 19, 2009 article on this, cited in the page, from which the supportable information about this incident is summarized. BBQboffin (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hacky Editorializing in Early life and education

The first paragraph mentions him living in York twice. The second remark is unnecessary. "Fetterman's father achieved success in the insurance industry and the family became wealthy," is poorly written. "And both of his parents were conservative Republicans," also poorly written, and it ignores he also said he was conservative due to his family, "though “not in an aggressive or angry way.” The first sentence of the second paragraph is crafted by a political hack. The article cited does not quote him as saying he was "privileged," nor did he claim he "sleepwalked." The article does not say he was "intending to eventually take over as owner of his father's business," but says it was the expectation. These edits were poorly, but intentionally, written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckerr78 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph mentions York in two different circumstances, so I see no issue with it. The sentence about his family becoming wealthy wasn't backed by the source so I removed, but the part on them being conservative Republicans is just a matter of fact statement. I found a source for the sleepwalked thing as it does seem to be legitimate. I'd be wary of not assuming good faith here - I certainly don't think these were added as some sort of nefarious smear campaign! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry

Is he of German American heritage? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

In "Early Life" section, within the phrase "his best friend died in a car accident", change "car accident" to "car crash." The term "accident" is no longer an accepted term to report on vehicular collisions when the exact details or cause are unknown or not stated. 2601:18A:C400:4DF0:0:0:0:AE31 (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Uh, since when? Andre🚐 19:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Health--Stroke

The article includes this statement: "Doctors informed Fetterman that he did not suffer cognitive damage, and a full recovery from the stroke is expected." However, all you need to do is listen to Fetterman to hear that he DID suffer cognitive damage. This statement should be removed. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we base our articles off what sources say, not the opinions of anonymous users online. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in Campaign section

The paragraph below the NPOV tag I've just added is obviously inconsistent with NPOV. It's entirely "criticized re this" and "raised questions re that". I'll make some changes soon -- and of course perhaps others will surely want to help make that paragraph a more balanced presentation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

2019 incident

I removed a paragraph about an incident in which Fetterman, while presiding over the state Senate, briefly became wobbly and “almost” fainted. This brief episode did not result in hospitalization. While the 2022 stroke is clearly noteworthy, this 2019 incident was (at most) a one-day story. Hard to say that this is biographically significant. Neutrality^talk 10:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it is notable. The Inquirer covered it and it relates to his health. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING and "almost fainting" once has nothing to do with health unless you can demonstrate that it wasn't an isolated incident. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It isn't notable/significant. There's no support for the idea that it is, in the sense that anyone identifies long-term consequences from it. I know it's the season for playing games with this shit. But let's not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's notable and should be included. There were two Philadelphia Inquirer articles on it here and here, and the text and sources were part of the article since at least June of this year, only to be suddenly deleted today.

On June 4, 2019, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Fetterman "collapsed" while presiding over the State Senate; he became wobbly and grabbed the lectern to prevent himself from falling over, and a member of the Capitol's nursing staff came to examine him. Afterwards, Fetterman's spokesperson said the lieutenant governor became overheated and was now "back to normal".

This is the second of three publicized incidents where he required immediate professional medical attention between 2018-2022 and we should include it the the "Health" section for accuracy and completeness. BBQboffin (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We know that it was covered. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We do not have any sources connecting it with his stroke, though, do we? How long it was here does not matter. It was objected to in a BLP with cause. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request, November 9 2022

"He won the Democratic nomination with 59% of the vote and won against Republican Mehmet Oz in the general election, and becoming the first Democrat to win this seat since 1962."

removal of the word "and" before the word "becoming" Azuremurkrow (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

Winning was by 50.6 percent, not by 59% 2600:1005:B01D:D8A1:648F:6C77:E561:43A5 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the sentence more carefully. "He won the Democratic nomination with 59% of the vote", which is correct Cannolis (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

He did not win 59% of the vote. It's currently at 51%. 98.10.231.109 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The 59% figure refers to the Democratic nomination, not the Senate election (see also section 4.2.1 on the Democratic primary). This seems quite clear in the article. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

John Fetterman's height

Should Fetterman's height be mentioned in the article? EPISCOPALIAN (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It is something that reliable sources have taken enough interest in that it has WP:WEIGHT? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

At the bottom of the main page, can you please add this, please:

2601:40A:8400:5A40:3085:B797:F278:CCF3 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

Domingo6777 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC) can I edit this please for school

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)