Talk:Scott Wagner

unions
On "Labor unions" the Scott Wagner Wiki page inaccurately presents as:

Wagner has been critical of labor unions. In 2014, he compared labor unions to Adolf Hitler, later apologizing for the comparison.[26][27] Wagner's company Penn Waste is non-unionized.[1]"
 * Labor unions

This is inaccurate because: Cited source [26] doesn't mention anything about labor unions. Cited source [27] PLAINLY quotes Wagner as using the term "public sector unions" not "labor" unions. Confirm that here: https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/sen_scott_wagner_apologizes_fo.html

THIS is accurate:


 * Government Employee Unions ===

Wagner has been critical of government employee unions, including the PSEA, and of Governor Tom Wolf for accepting more than $8 million in taxpayer funded campaign donations from them.

Here's a link that confirms Gov Wolf's acceptance of $8 million from government employee unions: https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/gov-wolf-receives-8-million-from-government-union-pacs

ALSO:

I added information about Scott's mother and father (names and occupation) -- which you all thought was "puffery" and removed.

That info is here:

Early life and education Wagner was born and raised in Spring Garden Township in York County, Pennsylvania, the son of Anne K. (a horseback riding instructor) and Jack R. (a construction worker) Wagner. He was raised on a farm. Wagner graduated from Dallastown Area High School in 1973.[1] He then spent one semester at Williamsport Area Community College (now Pennsylvania College of Technology), but dropped out to pursue business ventures.[2][3]

ALSO:

I added more detail about his business history -- which was taken directly from the cited source already on the page -- and which must also appear to you to be "puffery."

That's here:

Wagner began buying real estate and started his first small business at the age of 20. In 1985, he created York Waste Disposal with two partners - driving trucks, loading garbage, being the mechanic and then putting on a suit and tie at night to try to land more business for the company. [1] He sold it in 1997.[1] He eventually sold all his shares to Republic Industries in 1997. As soon as a non-compete clause expired, he started Penn Waste in 2000 and began challenging his former company for municipal trash contracts.[1] He has bought and launched several different business ventures throughout his career, including KBS Trucking in Thomasville where he still serves as president.[4]

WHAT I CANNOT FATHOM is that Tom Wolf's page is absolutely without a shred of criticism or controversy, while Wager's is sparse but for disconnected, damning material without a shred of context or balance. Is that ok with you all at wikipedia?

As it sits, Scott Wagner's page is a hit piece. Nothing more or less -- which is beyond disappointing. I've been a donor. I will not donate again, and I'm certainly inclined to share this experience. If you're going to allow someone to edit the page, so long as they are not seemingly affiliated with Wagner and/or his campaign, you're stopping short of the service you claim to provide and the trust associated with your brand. Anyone can mask their identity. If your pages are hit pieces, because somehow or another one can conceal his or her identity, and use your platform to smear another, you are worse than useless.

VAndring (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I and others are happy to work with you on this, but please take a more conciliatory tone. Regarding unions, the exact quote about unions is listed on Pennlive, which reads:   The coverage of those comments is well-sourced, and I don't see any objective reason to delete them. If you have other sources that can provide balance on this topic, please propose them here.  Brad  v  00:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Re content on parents and their occupations: Personally, I don't find such information useful when I read articles on public figures like actors, musicians, etc. But it is a widespread practise, so I'm not sure why such information should be omitted here. Same with business history. My tuppence. Willondon (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling me a liar is not my idea of "working with someone" and it doesn't invite "conciliatory." I agree with you on the quote -- but you're missing my point. There is nothing in the quote that references "labor" unions and there is a huge difference with regard to the dialogue taking place in Pennsylvania. Labor unions are hardworking, private sector citizens, that are not taxpayer paid and their union is not taxpayer funded. I think it's fair to ask that you update the piece to reflect the accuracy of Scott's position based on his documented words. VAndring (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to ask that you update the piece to reflect the accuracy of Scott's position based on his documented words. Do you have a source for this that we can use?  Brad  v  01:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Brad, to be clear, I'm not asking you to remove anything but the term "labor." Scott does not, nor has he ever had an issue with labor unions, and there is no material that can be cited to say otherwise. It's a critical distinction, and it would be gratefully appreciated. If you have to leave the part about him comparing unions to Hitler, for the sake of balance, would you also be willing to include that Wagner has taken issue with public sector (government employee) unions because those unions are funded by taxpayers -- and those unions use tax dollars to lobby politicians?

Here's a full quote: "I'm angry because public sector unions are using tax money to advance political causes that many of my constituents disagree with. I'm angry because my constituents are having their hard-earned tax dollars used to collect campaign contributions. I'm angry because I want to see real property tax reform and real pension reform here in Pennsylvania, and so do my constituents, but the public sector unions are taking money from my constituents to oppose these important issues.

And here's the source: https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/sen_scott_wagner_apologizes_fo.html

VAndring (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to change from == Labor unions == to == Public Sector Unions ==. Wagner has been consistent in this. VAndring (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've clarified that this is about public sector unions and included a quote from his apology. I'll leave the title as a general section header. Brad  v  02:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the change for some reason. Is it a cache issue? Thanks. VAndring (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another editor removed the quote from Wagner, but the change to "public sector unions" is still there. Brad  v  02:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Brad, the header ==labor unions== is misleading and unsubstantiated. Would you please update that to reflect what is and has been substantiated: ==public sector unions==??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VAndring (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded the section to include more perspectives about unions per this source, so the general section heading is relevant. Brad  v  03:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Will you be including a section on political views of Tom Wolf? VAndring (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in this article. I suspect that would be covered at the Tom Wolf article. Brad  v  03:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing included on the Tom Wolf page that discusses his political views -- which is what makes the Wagner page, by contrast look like a hit piece. It was mentioned on FB today -- which is how it came to my attention, and since then people are going nuts over it which why there are others attempting, like I did to edit the page. But re: the labor union general heed, you're using the reporting of the media -- not Wagner's own words to justify it. The author of the article you cite says that Wagner has been critical, but you won't find a direct quote to substantiate it. It's a stretch and Wikipedia shouldn't be making those stretches. Saying he doesn't want to unionize is not being critical. Further, the press often conflates labor and public sector unions or fails to distinguish between them. If Wagner says it, I think it's fair to assign the view to him. But the press paraphrasing and assigning views to him, without including a quote to substantiate it is poor sourcing. It's one thing for them to do it, but for Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia only as good as the press? If you look at Wagner's words, I don't know how you can be willing to assign him the "labor unions" heading. If you're looking for the reality it's there. If you're looking for something to substantiate the heading, you have to take someone else's word for it. With respect, that's what you're doing.

VAndring (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, not on the subject's own words. So if mainstream newspapers with good editorial control are publishing something, then that is what we use Wikipedia. While we often take quotes from subjects to highlight or bolster points, the actual content of the article is taken from third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are several other articles in reliable sources I've found that address unions, all of which support the article:    . I don't see any articles that have him saying anything in favour of labour unions in particular.  Brad  v  04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To your earlier point about the Tom Wolf article, I have not contributed to that article at all. But I do note that his political views are pretty well covered in the election and tenure section, which is fairly typical for an incumbent. Brad  v  04:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the discourse, Brad, but I disagree. The Wolf and Wagner pages are being treated with two completely different standards. When you are attributing a "view" to said individual, no one is a more reliable source than said individual. And that you can't find Wagner saying something favorable about labor unions is not justification for assigning him "critical of labor unions" -- especially when you search, but can't find him actually being critical of labor unions. And I'll say it again. Wagner's page is sparse on bio -- as though the author(s) had little interest in relating anything more than the narratives the Left has waged against him. Wolf's page on the other hand, is colored with detail. Wagner's page is 1D. Wolf's is 3D. Wagner's is cancerous, Wolf's is benign.

Example: EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION

"Wagner is from Spring Garden Township in York County, Pennsylvania. He was raised on a farm."

vs.

"Wolf was born and raised in Mount Wolf, Pennsylvania, the son of Cornelia Rohlman (née Westerman) and William Trout Wolf, a business executive.[2][3][4] His hometown was named after his ancestor, who was the town's postmaster.[5]He was raised Methodist[6] but is now affiliated with the Episcopal Church.[7]" _________

It looks as if Tom Wolf's campaign crafted Wagner's page -- and their own. The comparison, and the disparity is stunning. And in terms of balance, the Wolf page wins yet again.

The one place where Wolf's page reports controversy, it balances with Wolf's pov as paraphrased here:

Wolf proposed his first budget in March 2015, which included an increase in education spending, reductions in property taxes and the corporate tax, and a new severance tax on natural gas.[43] Six months into his tenure, in July 2015, the websites OnTheIssues and InsideGov namd Wolf the most liberal incumbent governor in the United States, based on a rating of public statements and press releases among other measures; Wolf rejected this assessment, arguing that his policies are directed by practicality rather than ideology.[44][45]

____

This is wrong. I'm not trying to skew reality or create a campaign brochure for Wagner. But there are standards I think we'd all appreciate being met across the board. If you don't see that, then I'm not sure what else I can say that will matter. But this is terribly disappointing -- on many levels.

VAndring (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I hear what you're saying, but there's no need to play the victim. The two articles are not directly comparable—as sitting governor, Tom Wolf has had a lot more media coverage, and people have been working on his article a lot longer. I'm trying to help improve the article—if you can help with sources that can be used to expand the early life section, or balance out some of the viewpoints and controversy, please suggest them.  Brad  v  04:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Playing the victim? LOL. I provided substantiated balance. One of your editors removed it. I gave you more than enough evidence that Wagner has never been critical of labor unions. You decided that since you could find him neither specifically criticizing nor praising these specific unions, there was no grounds for changing the heading or the lead. It's incredible.

VAndring (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I welcome discussions about content, but as I'm sure you've noticed, I refuse to respond to comments about editor conduct. So again, if you have sources, or particular wording that you can suggest, please provide them. Brad  v  05:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want comments about editor conduct, then don't invite them by departing from substantive discussion to take shots. Your work is important and difficult I've no doubt -- but people far more consequential than you or I, take great care to be gracious to others. You and your team are quite a contrast to that. You drew conclusions about me, were accusatory, abrasive, hostile and rude -- without apology. If you get a comment about it, you deserve it.

VAndring (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure comments like that make you feel better, but they do nothing to help improve the article. I have been very patient with you in an attempt to work out the BLP violations that you alleged were on this page. Since you don't have any further comments or suggestions about the content of this page, I think that goal has been accomplished. Brad  v  06:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Particular wording I suggest? Again:

I think it would be fair to change == Labor unions == to == Public Sector Unions ==. I think it would be fair and right to change the lead to "Wagner has been critical of public sector unions." It's the only thing that can be absolutely and undeniably substantiated. Everything else is a third party, conclusion or a stretch.

VAndring (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Vandring, please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As a state senator, Wagner also sponsored two pieces of legislation that would make it more difficult for labour unions to organize.  I didn't include it for now as I don't think it's terribly relevant, but he is well known for his anti-union stance.   Brad  v  06:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's partly the point I'm trying to make here, Brad. His "union stance" is widely misunderstood. If you carefully read those sources -- what Wagner is saying -- not the paraphrasing of others, you will note that again, it's public sector unions, and more specifically it's the practice of the government collecting forced dues on behalf of these government unions, which the government unions then use to lobby the elected government officials to impose policy that is in the interest of the unions rather than the taxpayers. Wagner has also been critical of the practice of forced dues, and voted for legislation to stop it. It may be a fine line, but it's a clear one. He has NOT been specifically critical of labor unions. If he has singled out any unions it's been public sector union and the SEIU -- which is a labor union, but it's a government employee union. Even when he compared "unions" to Hitler, he was very clearly talking about the PSEA. He has NEVER criticized private sector unions. The press has been lazy -- or is intentionally conflating it all -- and it's super frustrating to see wikipedia repeating it. What good is that? People turn to wikipedia for the facts -- especially at a time when the press is under increasing scrutiny. Maybe the most fair and accurate thing to do is change the heading to "unions" and change the lead to Wagner has been critical of union practices, it's growing power and burden on taxpayers." As it sit, it does not tell the truth. It simply perpetuates a false narrative as fact. VAndring (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Case in point: https://www.pennlive.com/capitol-notebook/2017/03/how_can_you_tell_its_a_day_tha.html. Note that the title uses the generic term "unions" but Scott Wagner is quoted as saying, "the number one public sector union that opposes any type of reform in Harrisburg, particularly pension reform and school tax elimination." At the very end of the article, the author writes, "Wagner's made a name for himself in Harrisburg by being both plain-spoken and a sworn enemy of public employee unions. You can expect a lot of this in the weeks and months to come."

VAndring (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll just say again that Bradv has brought about six sources, including this PennLive source which links to a transcript of Walker's full remarks back in 2014 when he said the Hitler/Putin thing. He talked about all kinds of unions in the rotunda - here are the unions that were there; not just public sector unions.  The notion that he is only focused on public sector unions is not supported by RS. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

abortion section on top
I put it up there so that the issues would be in alphabetical order. --Sherwoodspeaks (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Was there at some point a concerted effort to put these in alphabetical order? That would be unusual. I'm pretty sure the current order is a coincidence. At any rate, it should probably be towards the end next to the other social issue and respecting its importance in the campaign. Brad  v  16:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The order in 'views' sections should be alphabetical. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

image
Hello, this is the official Scott Wagner for Governor campaign. We would simply like to place a photo of Wagner in his infobox on his article. We uploaded the image to the Wikimedia Commons; we own the rights and have released those rights for Wikipedia. Thank you. --Wagnerforgovernor (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)