Talk:Doug Mastriano/Archives/2022/December

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)

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)

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)