Talk:Doug Mastriano/Archives/2022/November

Mislabeling Mastriano with opinionated titles
I came to this page as a British person with some interest in US politics to find out who Doug Mastriano is, after he was referenced by Fetterman in debate with Oz (I saw a Twitter clip). I'm not someone with a dog in this fight, I'm here to learn. I was pretty surprised to read that the Republicans had a far-right nominee, and looked for evidence. Reading this talk page, it seems the justification for the "far right" label is simply that it's been used by media outlets like the NYT and others. To me, the fact that the New York Times and other major news outlets that regularly endorse Democrats have chosen to label him far-right does not make calling him fight-right an objective fact compliant with WP:NPOV; the objective fact that he has been described as such by politically-opposed media outlets should be relegated to a section labelled "Controversy", not to the summary. If the standard for WP:NPOV is that the NYT says it, then Wikipedia has been reduced to simply endorsing the NYT point of view. That demeans Wikipedia. Administrators should act. 213.205.194.224 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've now seen that there have been several appeals against use of the label "far-right", but it was blocked on the grounds that a consensus against the label must be formed to remove it; as long as this remains controversial the label stays. This is because the article is "semi-protected" - a status that was applied by a user User:El C whose userpage consists mainly of a quote from Lenin and whose talk page begins with a picture of Che Guavarra. This looks to me like deliberate abuse. I'm losing confidence in Wikipedia.
 * 213.205.194.224 (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly I came to this page as a non-American, to find out who Doug Mastriano is, after being referenced by Fetterman in the debate. I agree completely that this article is shamefully biased. Invariably, these hit piece wikipedia articles are also locked so can only be edited by some kind of power users. 182.239.143.10 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I will push to remove any reference to Doug Mastriano being called "far-right" unless someone can cite a legitimate reason for that title. Citing left-leaning journalism opinion pieces that reference things like January 6th attendance and being associated with people that follow Q Anon is not evidence of "far right". If you want to call someone far right, you must cite specific policy that makes them "far right". Attending a the speech at Jan 6 and being associated with people is not "far right". Frankly, Mastriano has been fairly moderate in his voting record (he voted to pass Act 77 - is that "far right"?)

If Mastriano is the nominee for Governor, this space can not be used to peddle propaganda to disparage him. Cite specific "far right" policies, you can't just call people extremists.--Engineer-005 (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Mainstream journalism in reliable sources that you disagree with is not "opinion," only material that is clearly published as op-ed material is considered opinion. Please identify how the sources that you dispute originate as opinion.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Media Matters is the second cited source. They are a an openly progressive organization aligned with the Democratic party and hardly unbiased on the subject. 174.54.160.179 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that there have been a number of recent edits removing the well-sourced description in the lede as "unsourced." While that's not true, I'm not keen on loading the lead sentence up with adjectives for any political biography, so I've left it alone. I'm also not keen on day-before-the-primary partisan editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has once removed something for being "unsourced". I remove labels that are opinion. I mean for Goodness sake, there is a sentence in the 2nd paragraph that says "HE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS"...WHAT?! HUH!?
 * So anyone can just write a news article and now that's a biography on Wikipedia? DESCRIBED AS!? I'm not kidding, if that's the standard you folks are going to use, this will get MESSY. Engineer-005 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Echoing a comment above, material sourced by mainstream independent reliable sources should not be removed just because someone dislikes or disagrees with what it says. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the standard you're going to use, a lot of Democrat politician Wikipedia pages will begin reading like Fox News articles. Just because a mainstream news source wrote an article does not mean it is Gospel, fact or not opinionated. Please, tell me why Doug Mastriano is "far right". Thanks Engineer-005 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not "propaganda". It's Politico, the New Yorker, and the New York Times, all established, reputable sources. Act 77 is a terrible example, at the time it was passed unanimously by Republicans with only one Democratic vote. He has since opposed the bill. And his victory speech last night espoused various far-right rhetoric. Unless a more reliable source can be produced that shows why Mastriano isn't far-right, the label of far-right should remain. Tickery (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say that those are all left wing news sources, whether or not they are "established". If I went to Newsmax, Breitbart or Fox, established news sources, and they called Josh Shapiro a far left socialist, in no universe would I add that to a Wikipedia article and pretend that's a legitimate sourcing.
 * I notice that nobody has at any time in this rant and rave in response to Mastriano justified WHY he is far right. What specific position does he hold that makes him far right? Again, he's quite moderate based on his record. But I guess the opinion of a NYT writer means more than his record? What SPECIFIC view does he hold that is "far right"? Engineer-005 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a false equivalence. We do not base assessments of source reliability on partisan bias, we base them on journalistic practices. The NYT (this piece is not opinion) is reliable for US politics. Breitbart is not. Discussions about source reliability happen at WP:RSN, not each article's talk page. ― Tartan357  Talk 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a false equivalency. You are the one displaying your bias by saying such. The NYT has an agenda the same way Brietbart has an agenda. Both are biased. Your refusal to admit that and to prop the NYT up as a beacon of truth quite literally proves my point.
 * And we go yet another comment where you fail to point out what specifically about Doug Mastriano is "far right". His stances on almost everything align quite normally to mainstream Republican and conservative thinking. Attending a Q anon conference may make you foolish, but not "far right". Engineer-005 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out to you multiple times what makes him far-right. You pretending not to hear it is not the same as us not telling you. His participation in a coup attempt by trying to have Biden's electoral votes nullified by the state legislature is the main thing sources point to, and he has also supported some aspects of QAnon (not just attendance at the event). Bias ≠ unreliability. Bias shows in reliable sources such as the NYT through what they choose to focus on and their opinion content. In unreliable sources like Breitbart, bias manifests as fabricated information. If you wish to challenge what we consider reliable, then we have a venue for discussing that, the reliable sources noticeboard. ― Tartan357  Talk 20:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That does not make one far-right. Someone is far-right when they support far right legislation. Should we then change AOC's page to communist politician? You calling it a coup attempt is actually a pathetic showing of your own bias, and it seems you are the only one here seriously holding up this article. 72.235.8.165 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? This is the type of professionalism that wikipedia exudes? You claiming that one source is more "reliable". You might as well include the New York Post because that newspaper has been around since the founding of this nation 72.235.8.165 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Enough of us agree that “far right” should be removed. Let’s remove it then. Richinstead (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Labeling Doug Mastriano as "far right" is slander. The is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Please just stick to the facts. Referencing several journalists' opinions does not turn opinions into facts. The entire Wikipedia page referencing Mr Mastriano looks like like it was written by a PAC. Nbkta1r (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, the majority of editors agree that needs to be changed, so change it already. Richinstead (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate. There is clear consensus to include among people referencing actual policy (I don't count the QAnon troll who has been indef blocked), and it is well-sourced. Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your political agenda. ―  Tartan357  Talk 04:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

When I access wikipedia, I am solicited for donations. When I see politically biased positions defended merely by referring to other politically biased sources while the hit piece remains in place month after month, I am not motivated to donate. Sorry, the buck stops here.75.87.6.170 (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't need your money. And if you really believe the "stolen election" story, then you're too stupid to be editing here anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022
Change "American far right politician" to "American politician" (Politico, NYT, NBC News, and NPR are all left leaning and have bias against Doug) Remove the remarks about "separation of church and state" (they aren't in the constitution and should have no mention on this page) (NYT and AP are both left leaning and aren't unbiased here) Remove QAnon 9/11 line (Politico, Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Independent lean left, New Yorker and Media Matters are Left, Spolight PA article author is right out of the leftist media machines ABC and MSNBC) Remove "national attention" through "August" https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart (source for political leans in media)

All of the Democrat smear points blasted all over his main bio need to be removed to keep this a reliable source of information. Things like "far right" simply shouldn't be there especially since "far left" doesn't appear on Josh Shapiro's bio. Political bias should have no place in editing these articles that voters will be looking to for information, and anytime you use "far anything" it's very off-putting and not remotely fair (or true in the case of this candidate ). I already look at wikipedia through a jaded lens for the most part, but this is blatant political attacking on a candidate and I can't believe it's being just let slide! Do better! Jpweir (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is clearly a contentious change that requires consensus before implementation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Those on the far right tend to label mainstream news media as "leftist". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Political science is a serious discipline and there are qualities that can be examined to place a politician somewhere on the spectrum. You say *anytime* we use "far anything" it's "not remotely fair", which is to say that there's no such thing as far-right or far-left. Nonsense. You yourself are placing outlets on the spectrum, labeling them leftist, so clearly you believe the spectrum is a real and identifiable thing. What does Josh Shapiro have to do with it? They aren't automatically polar opposites just because they're running against each other, they actually happen to be individual humans with their own ideas and platforms. What a hyperpartisan way of looking at the world. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think the addition of a hyperlinked “far right” in the intro is meant to be political and not informative. It should just say “Republican” because that’s the official party of the subject. If we keep “far right” place in down page. Z1933 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd be hard-pressed to find sourcing that demonstrates his views are mainstream Republican. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * He’s THE Republican nominee. That makes him an official Republican. Z1933 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is contesting that is *is* a Republican. Just that Republicans have a range of views. The New Yorker says "Mastriano is, by almost any measure, one of the most extreme candidates currently running for office." 25stargeneral (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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

“Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.” That’s not the candidate at all. Z1933 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The shoe fits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022
Eliminate “far-right” in first sentence. 204.116.234.12 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg No. We document what reliable sources say, and they document that he is in fact far-right. If you don't recognize that as being true, you need to learn more about these issues and which side you're supporting. The fact that Trump studied Hitler's methods and had his speeches on his bedside table has consequences for everyone. This is just one example. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Separation of church and state “myth”
I know this sentence is listed to paint him as a conspiracy theorist, but the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture, according to experts. Therefore it is a myth. So, Doug is in good company with Michael W. McConnell the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, as well as Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/recordings/michael-mcconnell-religion-and-law-there-connection Richinstead (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Please read Separation of church and state in the United States. The separation of church and state is a key aspect of the First Amendment. This has nothing to do with religion in American culture, it is about religion in American government. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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


 * "Wrong." Really? And as your rebuttal you provide...the demonstration that you didn't even read the article? Get over your man-crush on this dude. How many comments are you going to spill on this thing. You can't save him. 71.47.252.144 (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There won't be many more, at least not under that user ID as it's been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Placement of "far-right" hyperlink in lead.
I support the consensus to make note of Mastriano's far-right positions in the lead, but I believe this is better suited for the third paragraph than the third. The first paragraph is a general overview; information that can be gleaned about the subject from the onset. The third paragraph is specifically about his far-right positions and actions. Bluerules (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel it's suitable to include in the opening sentence per current consensus (as mentioned by Pennsylvania2) as a descriptor, as it's a fairly crucial part of why Mastriano is as notable as he is - evidenced by the sheer number of publications that refer to him as a far-right politician and the fact he's referred to as expressly being "far-right" in coverage of all the stories he's involved in. Compare it to Marjorie Taylor Greene's page, for example. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mastriano is notable for being a state senator and a major party's gubernatorial nominee. Like I said, him being far-right is definitely important enough to acknowledge in the lead, but it's not why this article exists. He would be notable for being a politician without the far-right views. Basing the wording of this article on Greene's article would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, I am open to keeping the far-right hyperlink in the first paragraph. I think the second sentence could say this:
 * "A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his far-right views."
 * Would anyone support moving the far-right hyperlink to the second sentence? This way, we would connect his political party and ideology in the same sentence instead of identifying his views before we identify his party. Bluerules (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's another potential way to incorporate the far-right hyperlink into the second sentence:
 * "Known for his far-right views, he is the Republican nominee in the 2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election." Bluerules (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, the amount of coverage he has received as a result of his far-right political views make it an important enough factor to preface "politician" with it in the first sentence. Also, OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions is it not? Nonetheless, I was giving MTG's article as a comparable example of a similar far-right politician and how it's dealt with in her article, so I'm not seeing how this is a case of OTHERSTUFF at all. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * One component of OTHERSTUFF is we can't write articles simply based on how other articles are written. We're not allowed to identify Mastriano as "far-right" in the first sentence because Greene's article does the same thing; articles are written by different editors who reached a different consensus. Likewise, we can't write Mastriano's article based on how Bernie Sanders' article is written. In Sanders' case, he has also received significant coverage for his democratic socialist views, but "democratic socialist" (or even far-left) does not preface "politician" in the first sentence. His democratic socialist position does not appear until the last paragraph and that paragraph is entirely focused on his views.
 * While I can't use Sanders' article as an argument to rewrite Mastriano's article, I believe this is a better way to write Mastriano's article. We keep his viewpoints focused in one paragraph instead of conflating basic information with information we have to explain later. Nevertheless, I am open to keeping the far-right hyperlink in the first paragraph and moving it to the second sentence. Bluerules (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting, because I'm not seeing anything in the essay that says this. Anyway, once again, I wasn't saying "we should write it this way because MTG's article is written as thus", merely giving an example of how a politician's far-right views can be incorporated into the lede. I maintain my original position. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake, the relevant guideline here is WP:OTHERCONTENT, not OTHERSTUFF. And looking past this guideline, Greene's article technically doesn't call her a "far-right politician". It calls her a "far-right conspiracy theorist" after identifying her as a politician and businesswoman. The "far-right" component is more about the conspiracies she promotes than her political views in general. While I don't agree with this approach (I think it goes against the guideline that we only list primary occupations), it at least doesn't conflate her primary political occupation with her views.
 * Like I said, I open to moving the far-right hyperlink to the second sentence. I won't argue against the consensus, but I think that's a reasonable compromise. It would still be high up in the lead and one of the first things people see. Bluerules (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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


 * I'm not saying "far-right" shouldn't be in the lead. I'm saying it shouldn't be in the very first sentence. Mastriano is not notable for being far-right. He is notable for holding state office and being a major party's nominee for being governor. Being "far-right" is important information about his political career, but not why this article exists.
 * In my opinion, it makes the most sense to include the far-right hyperlink in the third paragraph because that's specifically about his far-right views; instead of immediately labeling him far-right and not explaining his views until later, we keep his views focused into one paragraph that explains why he's far-right. Compare this to Bernie Sanders' article, which doesn't immediately call him an "American socialist politician"; his political views are entirely in the last paragraph. While we can't write articles based on others due to OTHERSTUFF, I think separating the individual's surface details and their political views is a good approach. Bluerules (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with moving the descriptor past the first sentence as suggested. —ADavidB 12:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although it should be removed entirely unless he self-describes as far right. Javabarbarian (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022
Change “far right to Conservative”. Maestría no is not considered Far Right. He’s a Conservative politician. 2600:1007:B020:FDEF:99EC:A45:C072:3E3B (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * He's an election denier. That makes him far-right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides, the description "far-right" is supported, in the first sentence, by four references. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "far right" is an opinion. It should be removed. Javabarbarian (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Those four "references" are all opinion pieces. What a sham this is! Javabarbarian (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022
Change Mastriano is a far right candidate to, Mastriano is a Republican candidate. 40.142.212.80 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Source https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/senate_bio.cfm?id=1869&mobile_choice=suppress Z1933 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Far right" is informative. Just plain "Republican" is not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's opinion and slander is what it is. Javabarbarian (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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