Talk:Doug Mastriano/Archives/2022/June

Admin, please help. This page is pushing opinion as fact.
First thank you for removing the other political term “conspiracy theorist” from the lead. That was the right move.

Next, I urge you to use the same common sense approach for the term “far right.” Many different folks have already questioned the purpose and perhaps the political motivation behind putting such a slanderous term as “far right” in the LEAD of this page, right next to actual facts like name, birth year, and country of origin.

I propose the following adjustments:

- The term “far right” is optioned, too broad, and needs to be removed. It’s the equivalent of labeling one as a “racist”. - Adolf Hilter’s lead doesn’t even refer to him as “far right” - If you argue that it stays because of sources saying it’s true, than I argue that it needs to be rewritten as “some opponents have labeled him as far right” this is much more accurate and honest. - I also ask why we think this even belongs in the lead of the page. The lead should be for biographical facts only. - Also, why are we hyperlinking the term? It seems like we are trying to be more provocative. If the user clicks “far right” it takes them to descriptions of neo-nazis and white supremacists. Neither are true if the subject or even referenced in the sources provided? So if it stays, the link should be removed.

Lastly, I thought we all agreed that If you can’t prove hideous accusations about the person than you can not use that catch-all term to describe them. It’s misleading and untrue. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Richinstead (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been given an answer multiple times already. You can't just keep making the same demands over and over again and then go IDIDNTHEARTHAT every time you get told no. To address your points one by one: 1. the term "far-right" is stated in journalistic voice by multiple reliable (not "far-left", as you attempted to suggest earlier) sources, so it goes on Wikipedia. 2. Your second point is essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you have a problem with another page, feel free to go fix that. 3. The fact that he is on the far-right is not stated by his opponents, it's stated by reliable news sources, so no. 4. It's a defining characteristic so it belongs in the lead. 5. On Wikipedia, we hyperlink terms in every article so people know what they mean. Long story short, please quit the WP:BADGERing. Thanks. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It links to the entry for "far-right", describing him as essentially racist and ethnocentric, associated with the KKK and/or other militant white nationalist groups. Most people would agree that's exactly what the term means, however it's a far cry from describing this man or his views. Clown (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are you the sole decider? Richinstead (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Never claimed to be. You're just not making arguments based in Wikipedia policy. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Good. We finally agree on something. Haha Richinstead (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Opinion
“American far-right politician and conspiracy theorist.” Is an opinion and the sources listed and political in nature. Please remove this biased language. 100.6.164.74 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur. TheEfficientMan (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's backed up by multiple reliable sources so it stays. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

What’s next, calling him “ultra MAGA, because MSNBC called him that? You are using political language to disparage a potential governor. This is Wikipedia, no China, we used to have standards. Richinstead (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The description "far right" in the lead is supported by citation of four Reliable Source references. Wikipedia defines a Reliable Source as a source that has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The reliability of these sources is specified at WP:RSP. In other words, per Wikipedia policy, the term "far right" is appropriate and it will remain in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lead, if at all. Putting it in the lead makes no sense and is only meant to disparage the subject. I call for it’s removal. Richinstead (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Who are you to decide? Richinstead (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The term “far right” is subjective and therefore not fact. One could say “he has been labeled as far right by far left sources.” That would be accurate. Richinstead (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting Politico, The New York Times, NBC and NPR are all "far-left sources" then I suspect you're not gonna go far here. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, take a look at WP:RSP. The four sources (and many others) who describe him as far right are not "far left". They are recognized as reliable and authoritative sources in their reporting. When they describe a person as "far right", they are doing so based on his public words and actions. There is nothing subjective about it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m suggesting the author of those article are biased, yes. Richinstead (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

They are “far left” because I said it and therefore it must be true. Richinstead (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

He never referred to himself as “far right” only his enemies more have. So yes, it is entirely subjective. Richinstead (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I said it and therefore it must be true"? OK, I'm done here. You have no valid points to make and your opinions are not going to influence the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t know you are the sole arbiter of truth on Wikipedia. Cool. You have failed to prove he is “far right.” And you have also failed to justify why that belongs in the lead. That being said, with the same “power” you have, I declare that it must be removed now. Thanks! Richinstead (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Linking to the "far-right" entry is really disingenuous, which provides a definition: "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism". Please provide examples of where that accurately describes either him or his views. Clown (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See again, it's not our job to do original research on why or why Mastriano isn't on the far-right or where he fits specific tenets of an ideology. It's our job to reflect what the majority of quality sources say, which describe him as being a "far-right" politician. As an online encyclopedia we naturally wikilink certain terms so people understand what they are - if you have an issue with the content of the actual far-right page, you're welcome to address it on that page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 07:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A point about this: per the WP:NPOV policy, it's our job as editors to represent "all the significant views" (fairly, proportionately, and avoiding editor bias), not just what 'the majority of quality sources say'. This policy is not subject to any editor consensus. —ADavidB 15:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)