Talk:Blake Masters/Archive 1

Twitter/YouTube
I have removed certain new content cited to a tweet of Masters and a YouTube clip of a Newsmax primary debate. I don't think the content, which includes a direct quote, is proper weight, and it seems to me to be cherry-picking from primary sources. The edit summary for the new comment asserted that the addition "added context," but in fact it seems to me to be the opposite: the new content uncritically quotes Masters, without any context for whether his tweeted statement is correct. (As to Ukraine, it's not true that the U.S. is "paying for everything" nor is it accurate to compare U.S. aid to Ukraine to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.)

If the proponent of the material wants to make a case here, go ahead; I just don't think this content is necessary. Neutralitytalk 16:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It helps to put more information as to why Masters is against Ukraine aid, since not all people who hold that stance believe that for the same reasons. The quote helps make it clear that he has a populist/nationalist angle with his stance on foreign aid that doesn't have to do with being anti-Ukraine as much as putting more priority on the US (also worth noting that a vast majority of foreign aid to Ukraine has come from the US). If there're some sources out there that could hold it more critically I'm fine with including those, but I don't think there's really anything factually objectionable to what he said.
 * In terms of the Social Security quote I don't think there's anything wrong with adding another bit of info there either, since it's pretty short and helps paint a fuller picture. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, Bernie Sanders' article includes full quotes and tweets MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter/YouTube
I have removed certain new content cited to a tweet of Masters and a YouTube clip of a Newsmax primary debate. I don't think the content, which includes a direct quote, is proper weight, and it seems to me to be cherry-picking from primary sources. The edit summary for the new comment asserted that the addition "added context," but in fact it seems to me to be the opposite: the new content uncritically quotes Masters, without any context for whether his tweeted statement is correct. (As to Ukraine, it's not true that the U.S. is "paying for everything" nor is it accurate to compare U.S. aid to Ukraine to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.)

If the proponent of the material wants to make a case here, go ahead; I just don't think this content is necessary. Neutralitytalk 16:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It helps to put more information as to why Masters is against Ukraine aid, since not all people who hold that stance believe that for the same reasons. The quote helps make it clear that he has a populist/nationalist angle with his stance on foreign aid that doesn't have to do with being anti-Ukraine as much as putting more priority on the US (also worth noting that a vast majority of foreign aid to Ukraine has come from the US). If there're some sources out there that could hold it more critically I'm fine with including those, but I don't think there's really anything factually objectionable to what he said.
 * In terms of the Social Security quote I don't think there's anything wrong with adding another bit of info there either, since it's pretty short and helps paint a fuller picture. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, Bernie Sanders' article includes full quotes and tweets MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Completely biased page!
This page needs a complete overhaul! I came here to find out more about this candidate and was shocked by how overwhelmingly biased it was! I don’t know if it came from his opponents in the primary or those on the other side of the aisle but it needs to be fixed! It’s crap like this that’s giving Wikipedia a really bad name. It used to be a great tool and resource but unfortunately has devolved, like everything else online, into a tool of propaganda! 24.189.68.39 (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Terrible article
"a racist notion that originated on the far-right"...

Its not up to you to decide what is "racist" nor "far-right". Stop your democratic party propaganda and obvious framing. Dems support "open borders" because immigrants who will turn american citizens are more likely to vote blue. Thats a fact. 93.206.53.63 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Technically, the IP has a point. The article on Great Replacement has nothing about it being a racist theory, but there is a supported statement that it is a white nationalist theory. Any objections to deleting "racist" and adding "white-nationalist"? —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made the change.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Re C.Fred's remark that The article on Great Replacement has nothing about it being a racist theory, but there is a supported statement that it is a white nationalist theory. that's like saying cats must be cold-blooded because the article "cats" says they are mammals but doesn't mention them being warm-blooded. if you go to White nationalism the first sentence says its a racial construct, i.e., "racist". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The comment was made through the lens of "white nationalist" being a more specific subcategory of racist. To go with your analogy, instead of having to say "A tiger is a cat, which is a mammal, which is an animal", we can just say "A tiger is a cat", because the rest is part of the definition of a cat—and "A tiger is a cat" is more specific than "A tiger is an animal". —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * re the warm-blooded-nature of cats, we could indeed say as you suggest "A tiger is a cat", but only if we assumed the audience knows what cats are. That is a highly dubious assumption. What with grade inflation and rampant dumbing-down of education, do we really think our audience knows enough biology to understand that cats = mammals = warm blooded?  I think not.   But let's abandon the analogies and return directly to this article.  In my view, the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is by-god a racial/racist concept.  Sure, it can be sanitized by the sub-compartmentalization under the White nationalism label.  But should we play along with this sanitization gambit, or should we write "one level down" to help our audience comprehend this material?  I think the answer is ..... or at least should be...... an uber-no brainer..... as the RS itself says, we should include some wording describing the Great replacement theory as a racial/racist construct.  Before I arrived herethe RS was from the AP.... search that RS for the phrase "baseless racist theory" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Peter Thiel description
Is there a point in describing Peter Thiel as a “gay entrepreneur”? It seems very out of place. 66.60.97.166 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Normally I would agree with you. But since he and Masters are closely linked, Thiel is a married gay man, and Masters opposes gay marriage, it seems like a relevant piece of information in this context. 2604:2D80:6708:1500:9098:404C:575F:C94E (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2022
Blake Masters (political candidate) → Blake Masters – Blake Masters is already a redirect to this page. Disambiguation qualifiers should not be used if a primary topic has already been determined. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Not a fan of the guy’s politics (to say the least), but it’s pretty clear he’s the more prominent Blake Masters at this point. People searching for that name will be searching for Blake Masters, Arizona Republican Senate primary nominee. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. --Ratekreel (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Blake Masters was only turned into a redirect to this page two days ago. I was debating whether to revert it, but after comparing the two articles, somebody coming to Wikipedia looking for a "Blake Masters" is most likely looking for this one. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is 100% certain that when people search for "Blake Masters" they are searching for this one. I think the title should 100% be changed Snapback2002 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While I would prefer for political candidates to first be elected to their offices before such a change be made (in regards to WP:CRYSTAL, WP:Recentism and WP:NWFCTM), it is evident in this case that the candidate is already far more prominent than the screenwriter. Cilidus (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Anyone coming to Wikipedia to read up on Blake Masters is going to be looking for the one who has a very real chance of being a United States Senator come this January, now that he has won his primary. This Blake Masters is the one who has made the national news. GmTbNk2304 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly the most notable Blake Masters with a Wikipedia article, the move would make sense. BlueShirtz (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I doubt most people looking up the name do it with the screenwriter in mind MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Abortion position
Now that Republicans realize that banning abortion is unpopular, they're scrubbing they're websites to remove their positions and replace them with more moderate positions, but those are lies. Masters hasn't softened on abortion. He's just lying. So my question is, how should blatant lies be handled? The softer position is his official position right now, but again, it's a lie. 99.41.231.18 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @99.41.231.18 A lie? Or a change in policy? Abortion is a hot-button issue. I hate to tell you this, but ALL politicians use hot-button issues to garner support, and ALL politicians change their platforms when popular opinion on certain issues change. That is a fact. It is a politician's job to represent their constituents. In the current two-party system, there tends to be two groups of constituents, and therefore, the Republican candidates will change their policy to align with their Republican voter-base, and the Democrats will alter their policy to align with their Democrat voter-base. Since we generally only have a choice between two candidates, we are forced to pick the candidate who's policies are most aligned with our wants/needs/views. So if it is now becoming apparent that most Republicans are not in fact opposed to abortion/reproductive rights, a good politician is one that would change their platform to reflect that. Since we have no voting record to go on for Masters, we don't know if he'll stick to this platform, but we do know that plenty of politicians do change their viewpoints on key issues and stick with them, provided it is what their constituents want. To that end, if Masters has aspirations for additional terms, he will stick by the desires of his constituents, and vote in support of their desires— to fail to do so would be to commit political suicide. A good representative is just that, one who represents his constituents, regardless of his own beliefs. Nowadays, most politicians run on platforms, and platforms often change to align with voter mindset. All that matters is that the politician votes as a representative of their constituents— those that elected them— and as the voters often change their minds, so should the politicians. 2602:61:7C0C:BF00:B006:4A00:BCEB:89EB (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Far-right" or "right-wing" in the opening sentence
An IP keeps adding the term "Far-right" and more recently "right-wing" in the opening statement while citing Intelligencer. Neither term appear in the source. Furthermore, I see it as WP:UNDUE for the lead and overstuffing the lead sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Iamreallygoodatcheckers Support. I concur. IPs/anons should be blocked from edits on active political candidates. I don't know why they're not. Is it possible to make this article as sensitive and opinionated, requiring all edits be made by logged in users? (I know I am not currently logged in, but this is a talk page, not an article.) 2602:61:7C0C:BF00:B006:4A00:BCEB:89EB (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a way to prevent IP's from editing pages where there is rampant vandalism and WP:BLP violations through WP:RPP. I've requested this page be protected a few times, but admins seem somewhat resistant to imposing long-term protection periods.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 14:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Blake Masters' political views on LGBT rights removed?
I believe this to be a relevant piece of information and found that it was removed by User:Drmies without consulting the talk page, in what may have been an act of biased-editing as there were numerous sources and analogues for this, and it is relevant for people to know their candidates' views on LGBT Rights or how it should be legislated on by the federal government - including court appointees of which Masters believes it should be handled by an amendment to the Constitution. I am unsure of why this was removed as the source in question was not misconstrued even if it is The Daily Beast, and again, there are numerous sources that also subsist with Blake Masters' claims and views on same-sex marriage. I am asking for this section to be restored on the page. Especially due to the fact there was an ongoing edit-war war to keep the information hidden and removed repeatedly without referring to the Talk page and without any given explanation. Borifjiufchu (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * is a trusted long time admin. So I think you need to be careful there. Furthermore, any edit needs to be cited from a reliable source. TY. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 04:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what their position is, I'd love to know the explanation however and why we couldn't use another source. So I'm not concerned about what being "careful" means. And I am interested in hearing a rebuttal here than a potential 'threat'. Edit: Anyways a good article by https://americanindependent.com/blake-masters-lgbtq-rights-arizona-senate-2022-election/ does cite quite a bit of their positions on Blake Masters' view on LGBT individuals. Now I would go around and cite additional sources and put an accurate section on the page, but it is protected, hence I am requesting another user to undertake this. Certain positions include the fact that Bisexuality is a trend that people grow out of with a voice recording from a campaign event backing this up, as well as archive.org pages attesting to the fact that Blake Masters removed sections on his page that used to include his positions on Transgender bathroom issues, and frequent opposition to transgender discrimination laws. The moment where he disagrees with same-sex marriage is a Queen Creek San Tan Valley Republican Women's Club campaign event where he states that the point of marriage is "procreation". Borifjiufchu (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that you'd say "it doesn't matter what their position is" right after you accuse me of "an act of biased-editing". One more thing: editors removing information is NOT the same as "keep[ing] the information hidden"--saying that without any evidence is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm having a conversation about the subject matter. I mean I could've easily misinterpreted and that falls back on me, sure. But I shouldn't have to be aware of the fact someone is admin on whether or not to point a discrepancy in editing, when revising the content to be more accurate seems more apt, and maybe that's where I disagree as someone that likes to use the website and is concerned when information is taken down and not revised for accuracy or content standards when a good information source-search was only 1-2 minutes away. And no it is not a violation and that much I am clear on which is why I am bringing it for a talk page to help encourage a more helpful revision on the matter since removing the section altogether when that is something that appears on many other politician's pages on policies just doesn't make much sense. You should be able to see where I'm coming from on this - and no, it's not malicious. Borifjiufchu (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So are you talking about these edits, from a month ago? If you're going to accuse someone, then provide diffs. And what's pretty obvious, I think, is that the one paragraph was unverified, and opinions don't become interesting until reliable secondary sources find them interesting--and even then it's a question of relevance. The other part was "he has a gay donor"--and that really falls in the WTF category, a factoid thrown in to suggest, suggest, something. You may be confusing this encyclopedia with a social media platform. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just provided you with a source, and many other sources on top of it for other editors to help make the section more accurate. I never said that the "Gay donor" association had to be mentioned, but if you saw what I wrote in the paragraph edit above, you would see a more accurate stance on where it is coming from, and the sources and links cited (with audio transcriptions) to make it a more accurate representation. Although you are wrong to think I am confusing an encyclopedia with a social media platform, as I didn't defend those other editors making those assessments, my language should be tantamount at least to that much. Borifjiufchu (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm tell me about the "biased editing" you accused me of. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to detract this conversation back to an off-topic matter, my intent wasn't to defame or slander people, but you should know that and 'assume good faith' just like the citation you made. You assume good faith for me - and I'll do the same for you, however you haven't provided an elevated conversation on the matter and aren't following along the lines here which is what I wanted to progress with, but you don't seem to want to do that, that's not on me however. Borifjiufchu (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)