Talk:Doug Mastriano/Archives/2022/May

Laudatory, promotion, advocacy, conflict

This poorly sourced article is in obvious violation of Wiki's restrictions on advocacy, conflict of interest and neutral, proportional coverage. Pristine2 (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pristine2: I have removed the added templates, as they are not supposed to be used in such messages on article talk, and broke the talkpage formatting. Please read their template documentation for more information. GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pristine2 and Majorbuxton:, Please see the analysis of this article at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Article section: Military decorations and badges

U.S. military decorations
	Legion of Merit
	Defense Meritorious Service Medal
	Meritorious Service Medal
	Joint Service Commendation Medal
	Army Commendation Medal with two Oak leaf clusters
	Army Achievement Medal with three Oak leaf clusters
U.S. service (campaign) medals and service and training ribbons
	National Defense Service Medal with one service star
	Southwest Asia Service Medal with three service stars
	Afghanistan Campaign Medal
	Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
	Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
	Army Service Ribbon
	Army Overseas Service Ribbon (with award numeral "3")
Foreign decorations
	NATO Medal
	Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia)
	Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait)

U.S. badges, patches and tabs
	Parachutist Badge
U.S. orders
	Order of the Spur Cavalry Hat and Spurs (Gold)

Section is un-sourced (and apparently unsourcable) moving to talk page to retain but removing from main article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.102.53 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Doug Mastriano Conspiratorial Post.png (discussion)
• Douglas Mastriano Islamophobic Meme.png (discussion)
• Douglas Mastriano's Campaign Page Posting Anit-Muslim Memes.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

There appears to be the start of an edit war regarding this section. Since it includes referenced information, it merits a discussion. Ifnord (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the variety of edits and the comments around these edit there seems to be a conflict of interest around the accounts currently removing cited and NPOV material. There's a possibility we have multiple sockpuppet accounts working in tandem to vandalize the page? There are similarities in writing style by DrWillow and user Majorbuxton who had previously been warned about a conflict of interest.174.55.102.53 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

New user F&INerd continues pattern of disruptive editing. Requested checkuser on the accounts DrWillow and F&INerd Hyderabad22 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As per wiki guides on criticism I've removed the name of the section, and separated information into more appropriate subsections. Additionally I've added more cited examples from the linked referenced articles in regards to the posts about Muslims. I've attempted to remove editorialized content to maintain a NPOV. The entire article needs a go over as most of it is highly promotional in nature and seems to have mostly been written by either the subject of the article or someone close to the subject of the article. The works section contains works that probably do not merit citation. I maintain the medals section is inappropriate and should be removed. The biography needs a heavy edit to maintain a NPOV. I'd love to have an outside perspective on the article, but as I find time this week I'll try to update those things. Hyderabad22 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request to revert the page back to its previous state before vandalism by DrWillow Hyderabad22 (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done because there were multiple problems with the edits. Please note, however, that this was not vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVANDALISM carefully. Repeatedly misidentifying edits as vandalism is generally considered a personal attack and not tolerated. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, personal attacks were not intended. Thank you Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Published works section

The struggle I'm having with this section relates to the fact that much of it seems over the top and like an ad for the the books. I'm wondering why this section isn't just a bibliography? Does the book merit having multiple paragraphs written about it? BarrelProof you seem to have experience with this section what are your thoughts? Also are the other papers listed worth including? -- Hyderabad22 (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I cleaned up that section a bit further, per this diff. The statements in it seem (at least mostly) adequately sourced to me, and I don't see a clear justification for removing them. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

New Facebook Group

Are those new edits from Thisisforpoints8 properly sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:8001:50C0:9136:3148:6E4F:A73D (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

Mastriano reportedly tested positive for COVID-19 ([1] [2]). 2603:6010:D400:1C41:610E:F5A2:5A28:269B (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Implemented based on verified Associated Press sourcing. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

York Photo

The York Photo addition seems to be original research. Unless it can be better cited I think we should remove it. Thoughts BarrelProof or Nerdsmakemedia? Also as an aside I plan to flesh out the questions about the York Site section a bit more. I'm a bit low on time at the moment. --Hyderabad22 (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. To include commentary in the article that questions Mastriano's account of the photo, we should have a citation to something published by someone else that questions Mastriano's account of the photo, not just citations to primary sources that don't mention Mastriano or a dispute about the photo at all. I removed that paragraph from the article. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nerdsmakemedia here - I found the following published citation that refutes Mastriano's claims about the photo on his book cover. This was the source for my information, but in my haste I couldn't find this back in November. Thanks for your work. I'm a bit of an amateur at this. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55222882

In his book Alvin York, p. 114, Mastriano claims that the photograph is of York with his prisoners, Lieutenant Vollmer, Lieutenant Max Thoma and Lieutenant Paul Lipp, being led away after the 8 October action (see Figs 83a & 83b). York is allegedly walking behind the named Germans. However, the descriptive on the rear of the pictures clearly states the photograph to be of German prisoners near Boureilles, some 15km away and dated 26 September 1918, thirteen days before York’s encounter.

Kelly, Michael. Hero on the Western Front: Discovering Alvin York's WWI Battlefield (p. 287). Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.

HistoryMediaNerd (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Doug Mastriano official portrait.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Source for possible expansion

https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2021/03/pa-senators-research-book-on-wwis-sgt-york-questioned-by-others.html Go Phightins! 22:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Doug Mastriano official portrait.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Pa electric grid protection

Better be first to be pushing this issue Everyone wants this to get done 67.141.250.138 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Photo

The current infobox photo is Mastriano in his military uniform. It's better quality than the other available headshot, but he is also not current military, which could give off a false impression. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the false impression. He is a politician, not a current military officer, and he is primarily notable as a politician. Showing him in uniform as the primary infobox photo seems inappropriate. I have reverted the photo change of 03:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is the photo he has chosen to use as his official photo as a state senator. We should use the photos preferred by the subject when available. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is using a subject's preferred image set somewhere as a WP policy? Editors certainly don't include other content based on subject preference. —ADavidB 22:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No, so we don't have to do that, but someone invariably brings it up without objection whenever I've participated in these types of discussions, so it's a possible example of an unwritten consensus. It's not a factual matter but something entirely subjective, so I see it as a harmless way of respecting someone's self-image. I will note, though, that the current image is of low quality as it's a still from a video, and is facing to the right, which is contrary to MOS:PORTRAIT. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this has been resolved by the availability of the official Senate portrait. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Left wing bias

I feel the editors of this page are biased.

Looking at various things across the header, I dont see any reason to be there and some wording is suspect.

For example there is a new section in the header that talks of Jan 6. I read this article and even contributed the bulk to MS4 section, and this new whole paragraph regarding 1/6 did not exist until recently. There were thousands of people at that rally and I dont see why this is being elevated specifically for this individual, and why is it just happening now. It appears to me this is incident is being elevated because he was just now nominated for senate

Also the header describes mastriano as far right. Mastriano appears to be a bog standard conservative, I dont see how he is can be described as "far" unless the people adimstrating the page consider the whole republican party as far right.

Also a pet peave of mine is the use of media matters as a source for the claims in the header. Media matters is an explicitly progressive organization, it says so on their website, and were using them a source for a conservative politician, under no circumstances would we use brietbart or the daily wire as legit sources for the header of politicians like fetterman or shapiro.

I look forward to dialog about the issue BreezewoodPA (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Also can I add a question to the contributors to this article. How many would consider voting for mastriano? If the answer is no one, it would at least demonstrate that this article doesn't have right wing biss BreezewoodPA (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Chances are a good portion of contributors to this article aren't PA voters. He is labeled as "far right" in this article because reliable sources call him that. Someone who advocates disenfranchising his own state's entire electorate and the decertification of a free and fair election to keep his preferred candidate in power is not a "bog standard conservative", and media are rightly concerned by attempts to normalize that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

there is a reason I made this comment and posted it on the Talk forum, it is the place for "discussing improvements to the Doug Mastriano article", and this article, in my opinion, is not “making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered” I am not having a general discussion of Mastriano, im having a discussion of the bias in the article, and the use of biased sources.

an example im going bring up is the first sentence calling the candidate "an American far-right politician." this statement is problematic for 2 reasons:

1) it hyperlinks to an article essentially on fascism, (Mussolini is the first image in the hyperlinked article), i think its safe to say that an article on this candidate, shouldn't have the first adjective link to a page that talks about "oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide." The citations used, (which in my opinion are biased), do not indicate these are the positions of mastriano. wikipedia policy states, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." and no where in the 4 cited articles directly support the claims of the hyperlinked article.

at the very least the hyperlink needs removed immediately.

2)The citations used are biased. wikipedia source policy acknowledges:

"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"

"News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. "

The sentence, "Douglas Vincent Mastriano (born January 2, 1964), is an American far-right politician" is written as a fact so to be correctly used in this article in its current form, news sources must be from established outlets, and not be "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces."

The New Yorker should not used as source for this statement since at no point in this article does the author make the conclusion mastriano is far right. the article about Mastriano's views on christianity and it application in government, which is reported faithfully, however, by an analytical intuition, that becomes editorialization on the writers part, a theoretical jump is made from "christian nationalism" to "far-right" this cannot be a reliable statement of fact.

additionally the New Yorker is generally seen as biased source, it is a commentary magazine, it arguably is not established as news source especially compared to Reuters or the AP.

the New yorker citation should be removed to the sentence should be changed such that it is no longer a statement of fact, rather opinion.

The Politico article also makes analysis and proscriptive statements that border on analysis, which should rule out the article as a source. the article reports on how Pennsylvania Republican party officials tried to get candidates to drop out, to prevent the nomination of mastriano. it is news to report the dealings of the party officials, however it is analysis to say they are doing so because mastriano is far right. Every source of the politico article states mastiano is unelectable, never do they say mastriano is far right. it is editorialization within the politico article.

since the claim of far-right is editorialization on the authors part, the politico citation should be removed to the sentence should be changed such that it is no longer a statement of fact, rather opinion.

these articles while not op-eds, provide analysis on the facts they report, and thus must be treated opinion pieces and cannot be used to proclaim statements as fact.

the nyt is behind a payroll so i wont criticize the citation.

Media matters is not a newspaper it is a no profit research center, and thus has different standards. Media matters is explicitly progressive. this is the header on the media matters about page:

"Media Matters for America is a web-based, not-for-profit, 501 (c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

they admit they are not biased so any work they produce must comply with wikipedia use of biased source."Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

by using media matters a citation for the claim "an American far-right politician" we are acknowledging that the claim is a viewpoint, not a fact. If only this biased viewpoint is mentioned, this article violates, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."

The 4 citations are:

1. Griswold, Eliza (May 9, 2021). "A Pennsylvania Lawmaker and the Resurgence of Christian Nationalism". The New Yorker. Retrieved May 11, 2021.
2. Hanonoki, Eric (July 13, 2021). "PA state Sen. Doug Mastriano promoted QAnon on Twitter over 50 times". Media Matters for America. Retrieved May 7, 2022.
3. "Pennsylvania GOP panics over possible Mastriano nomination". POLITICO. Retrieved May 11, 2022.
4. Epstein, Reid J. (May 17, 2022). "Doug Mastriano, a far-right 2020 election denier, is Pennsylvania Republicans' choice for governor". The New York Times. Retrieved May 18, 2022

As far as Mastriano being right wing, the only positions biased publications, including the article, wishes to attribute to the candidate involve covid-19 and the reaction to the 2020 election, the candidate has a variety of positions on a variety of issues, that readers of this article would not know from the articles current state. this article could discuss the candidates positions on gun control, property tax, school choice, trans issues, or any other "bog standard conservative" position. as far disenfranchising his own states electoral vote, the president, and leader of this party wanted the states vote to be disenfranchised, and "far right" appears nowhere in the article on donald trump. BreezewoodPA (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters is allowed. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed."

the sentence used does not attribute the claim to media matters, at the very least if media matters is to be used at all, it schould be attributed properly. BreezewoodPA (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Asking editors who they're voting for is WP:FORUM behavior and not relevant. Your WP:WALLOFTEXT is filled with whataboutism and baseless claims that the cited sources are not reliable. Claiming the New York Times and Politico are not reliable sources for U.S. politics will not get you anywhere here. Read WP:RS to understand how Wikipedia content is actually determined, then come back here to contribute constructively (without the rambling). ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

we can argue over several points i listed however

do you or do you not agree that media matters is improperly attributed and needs in text citation, See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. - "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed."

do you or do you not agree that hyperlinking the first sentence to a wikipedia article on fascism, when none of the citations even remotely broach the topic of fascism is biased.

I have read WP:RS in fact i referenced it several times.

as far as political and the New Yorker, they are fine sources, however in those specific articles they NEVER report mastriano as far-right, they report him as unelectable, and christian nationalist respectively, then editorialize that unelectable, and christian nationalist respectively means far-right. and WP:RS states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. " and that is why they cant be used BreezewoodPA (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The New York Times (not the same as the New Yorker, BTW) article literally has "far-right" in the title. And none of these are labeled opinion pieces. I will take the New Yorker and Media Matters sources out since they are weaker on that point, but Politico and the NYT clearly label him "far right". ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added two more sources calling him "far right", NPR and NBC. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not talking about the New York time article. I am talking about the New Yorker (and Politico). there are 4 citations.

I understand they are not labeled as opinions. However the articles contain editorializations based on the facts they report. The New Yorker (NOT THE NYT) article reports on christian nationalism, the author reports on statements made by mastriano on the role of christianity in government. the author then claims these statements make Mastriano far right. it is news that mastriano hold certain views, however it is analysis that those certain views are "far right". the article is simultaneously news and analysis, (it doesn't have to be labeled opinion) for an article to be editorialized.

the news can be cited as fact from the New Yorker, however the editortializations and analysis of that news cannot. WP:RS states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." BreezewoodPA (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

So far you have ignored the critique of the media matters and the explict violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. - "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." BreezewoodPA (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the New Yorker and Media Matters and replaced them with NPR and NBC. So what's the problem? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

i just saw this, i apologize,

however I still think the hyper link needs to be removed for far-right. it links to a page that describes "fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism..." these are objectively not Mastrianos policies.

the wikipedia article's definition of far-right and the NBC article's definition of "far right" are clearly not the same. NBC, NPR, and NYT are not calling him a fascist so this hyperlink violates "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." of WP:RS BreezewoodPA (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources do directly support the label "far-right" that appears in this article. If there is a dispute about the accuracy of our article on that subject, then that needs to be resolved at that page. Articles would have practically no internal links if there was a requirement that their content be aligned first. I suggest expanding Far-right politics in the United States or opening a discussion on that article's talk page. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is absolutely FILLED with left wing bias, it's ludicrous to pretend otherwise. Labeling him as "far right" is an absolute disgrace.

He's far right, why? He opposes abortion? Like Trump? Those are mainstream Republican platform items. Mentioning every single rally he goes to to fundraise money because some QAnon people happen to be there? Ok so should I go on Josh Shapiro's page and mention every black nationalist at any rally he attends? Any far left activists? NO! Because it's not relevant and not appropriate. Stop pretending you all have no bias, this is really bad. Engineer-005 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is well documented by multiple reliable sources that Mastriano is a far-right politician, it's clearly relevant given it's a page ABOUT a politician and will naturally include his views, and finally there is a clear consensus above to include the information. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Which sources reliably document that Mastriano is far right? Which views does he hold that make him far right?

Thanks in advance for being the first person in this thread to answer that. Engineer-005 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

All of the sources (reliable sources which are specifically on the perennial source list as reliable sources) for the claim describe him as being on the far-right. That is what we go off, not original research on his policies, and we're not obliged to research his policies and determine that ourselves. WP:No original research is a cornerstone of Wiki policy. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I respect the fact that you are sourcing your description of Mastriano as "far-right" from Wikipedia's perennial reliable sources, but I think that these sources, despite their characterization by Wikipedia as reliable, have a left-wing bias. While they may report most or almost all facts correctly, they spin the subjective parts of the news with a left-wing bent, just as Fox News does in the other direction.

Furthermore, characterizing a politician's stance on the political spectrum has an element of subjectivity to it. Since The New Yorker, Media Matters, Politico, and the New York Times all have a left-wing bias, it stands to reason that they would position him, an obvious right-winger, in an unfavorable place on the political spectrum, and in doing so their contentions cannot be upheld prima facie in the same way that their factual reporting can.

And because these said sources have a left-wing bias, they will avoid characterizing someone like Fetterman or AOC as "far-left." Hence, neither Fetterman nor AOC is branded "far-left" on their Wikipedia pages. This seems to me to be a double standard. TheEfficientMan (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

See my above statement about reliability vs. bias. Bias does not prevent us from using a source if it is reliable. Wikipedia has a slight left-wing tilt simply because many sources on the right regularly fabricate information, which makes them unusable under Wikipedia policy. I personally wish they would stop doing that, which would mean their analysis could be balanced with other sources. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that bias does not prevent us from using a source if it's reliable. But that only goes for factual information. As I mentioned above, "reliable sources'" subjective characterizations of a politician's position on the political spectrum cannot be simply upheld without question in the same way as their factual reporting can. The fact that Mastriano attended 1/6 is verifiable. We can rely on The New Yorker for that information. We cannot rely on The New Yorker for a loaded claim that he's "far-right," with its consequent implication that he should be excluded from mainstream politics.

The problem is this Wikipedia article sites the analysis on news events, not the actual reporting. In all the articles used to claim mastriano is far right, they report on mastriano views, and because of the news they interpret the candidate to be far right. This is analysis, this is not news, and it is Wikipedias policy that analysis cannot be proported as fact. WP:RS states "Editorial commentary, analysis, and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TheEfficientMan (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not analysis in that sense. It is written in journalistic voice and appears in the headlines of the New York Times, NBC and NPR. The New Yorker is no longer cited for the "far right" label. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed analysis. It really doesn't matter if it's written in journalistic voice or appears in headlines. Any absurd claim could be written in journalistic voice, and headlines are designed to be attention-grabbing and sensational. Hence, headlines are less reliable than the articles that follow them. It is also immaterial is The New Yorker is no longer cited; my purpose in referencing it was purely exemplary. NYT, NBC, and NPR also all have left-wing biases. TheEfficientMan (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As I've explained to you and you've already conceded, those sources having bias does not prevent them from being used. If these sources started making "any absurd claim", we would asses them as unreliable. None of these pieces are presented as opinion pieces or otherwise presented differently from the papers' standard news format—a requirement for them to be deemed WP:RSOPINION. It does not become opinion just because it contradicts your worldview, nor is the purpose of Wikipedia to affirm anyone's worldview. Discussions on talk pages revolve around what the sources say, not what editors believe to be true about a situation. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on the first point. I don't have a problem with these sources being used for the purpose of citing facts. I'm not trying to say that calling Mastriano "far-right" is absurd, but clearly @Engineer-005: thinks so. So who's to judge what is and isn't absurd when it comes to subjective questions like whether Mastriano is indeed far-right or not? It doesn't matter if the pieces are presented as news articles because news articles themselves have subjective statements in them. That requirement for WP:RSOPINION seems silly to me, but elsewhere on the page we find this:

"News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." (Emphasis mine)

Mastriano being far-right is not a statement of fact. It is a subjective statement.

My main point is that news reporting from well-established news outlets contains subjective statements, and that these subjective statements should not be accepted by Wikipedia prima facie. Either they must be evaluated somehow or excluded.

It seems to me that because Wikipedia currently takes these subjective statements from "reliable sources" at face value, and these sources lean left, Wikipedia knocks politicians on the far right significantly more than on the far left.

Of course something doesn't become opinion because it contradicts my worldview, but claiming Mastriano is "far-right" is not an objectively verifiable claim. It is an opinion, at least to some extent. TheEfficientMan (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody making this claim that political positions are inherently subjective has explained why that is the case. Far-right has a definition, and this guy meets it. So we should pore over every source we already consider reliable and parse out which parts are "opinion" based on whether they contradict editors' belief in falsehoods? No such policy exists. For goodness sake, he tried to disenfranchise his own state's entire electorate based on fabricated fraud claims and supports QAnon. I'm sure the QAnon editor you pinged will agree with you, but I'm not sure why you think that'll help your case. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You make a good point about the definitional issue. And, indeed, Mastriano meets Wikipedia's criteria for "far-right politics": his political positions are "further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right." But in making this point you have conceded that judging whether Mastriano is far-right is an issue that must be decided through evaluation against an objective standard, instead of deferring to what "reliable sources" say. The only reason I pinged Engineer is because I wanted to make a point that what constitutes "any absurd claim" varies from person to person. Engineer considers labeling Mastriano as far-right absurd. You don't. So which of you should get to decide what constitutes "any absurd claim?" TheEfficientMan (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources decide. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

And the claim that their is a clear consensus is absolutely not true. This article, a week ago, did not look like it currently looks. it made statements like sources claim mastriano is a far right candidate. It did not have a whole paragraph dedicated to mastrianos participation in 1/6. The previous group of editors explicitly outlined how 1000s of people were present and it would be misleading to isolate this incident to mastriano.

If there is consensus why has the article go under massive reconstruction in the past few days BreezewoodPA (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

100% correct. To state that Mastriano is "far right" as if that is empirical fact is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. There isn't even consensus on Wikipedia chat boards, let alone in general American or global populace. Calling someone "far right", "far left", etc. etc. is PURELY a subjective opinion. Citing the NYT is a farce. Just because some journalist at the times THINKS something doesn't make it true. Is there a measure or empirical formula they are applying?

It's quite telling that despite asking 5 times, not a single person has been able to espouse a single "far right" belief held by Doug Mastriano. Being a Q Anon believer is not "far right". His beliefs on almost everything are held by a very large portion of conservatives and the electorate. It's plainly a smear term being used to spread disinformation on Wikipedia, sorry. I no longer believe the editors of this page have pure intentions. I think this is wrong. Engineer-005 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Being a Q Anon believer is not "far right". And in one sentence, you lost any chance of ever getting anything changed here. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@BreezewoodPA: I can tell you are attempting to contribute in good faith and I will not lump you in with our Q friend here. But you should know that we only consider articles WP:RSOPINION if they are labeled that way—it is a journalistic best practice to label opinion pieces as such. Wikipedia does not parse out what parts of sources are analysis and exclude them, because the standard for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia articles are designed as intelligent summaries of mainstream scholarly knowledge. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This is clearly biased and any disparaging term like “far right or conspiracy theorist” is opinion and should be removed. Enough of us agree, so thus should be removed now. Richinstead (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The New Yorker called him a Christian Nationalist, it’s not a real Denomination but it sounds really scary. Let’s role with that. I have a source!! https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/a-pennsylvania-lawmaker-and-the-resurgence-of-christian-nationalism/amp Richinstead (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

DECISION MAKING: Label of "far right"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We are now having this discussion across 2 different threads. I am making a new section to decide on the label of "far right". My opinion is that the label is extremely subjective and highly inappropriate for a biography. You can cite as many left leaning news sources as you want, the argument is not at all whether or not the NYT or Politico are legitimate news sources. They may be, but they are not reporting the temperature or the color of the sky in this case, they are reporting a completely subjective, opinionated take on someone's political positions. There is no test to determine whether or not someone is "far right".

I've asked several times for someone to articulate WHAT makes Mastriano "far right" and nobody has answered. The sources cite his association with Q Anon - that isn't "far right". Other articles talk about his stance on abortion, which is held by a large portion of the American electorate and would hardly be justifiably called "far right".

This is an extremely slippery slope, where we are now saying that if a known news organization puts opinionated language in to an article, it is fair game to use that language in a Wikipedia biography. I'm sure nobody here would think it was appropriate to call Josh Shapiro a "socialist" or "far left" in the opening line of his biography because an article at Fox News or another mainstream conservative news source said so.

If the decision is made to keep "far right", I will absolutely be adding "far left" to pages for John Fetterman and Josh Shapiro based on that standard. This is ridiculous, sorry.Engineer-005 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I replied this to you in the other section but I'll say it here again - we're not obliged to name specific policy positions or carry out original research on Mastriano's policies. We're supposed to use sources, and we've used four of them (all of which are regarded by Wikipedia as reliable, all of which have referred to Mastriano as being "far-right" in factual tone), and that is what we use to identify politicians' beliefs. If you find that multiple reliable sources have referred to Fetterman or Shapiro as "far-left", go for it, though I suspect you won't find much. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Fetterman is now labeled far left thanks to 4 left leaning news sources calling him far left with the same gusto that those sources call Mastriano far right. Engineer-005 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Fetterman article is irrelevant to this talk page so I'm not intending on turning the discussion into one about that - but the difference here is that the articles in the source outright refer to Mastriano as being far right in journalistic voice - the ones you cite range from an outright quote from a GOP official, to describing a hypothetical thought a voter might have - this isn't a reliable, verifiable claim. Also, this is WP:POINTy editing, which Wikipedia pretty clearly states isn't allowed. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. Also, be aware of WP:POINT. If you add "far left" to those pages to demonstrate your point about this page, you may be blocked, because sources do not call them that. If you actually believe Q Anon - that isn't "far right" then you likely lack the mental faculties required to edit Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see the quick devolution into ad hominem arguments. Really showing off your high IQ on that one haha. Engineer-005 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who thinks Democrats eat babies. You chose to volunteer that you apparently see nothing wrong with QAnon. Since you have demonstrated your complete disconnection from reality, log off and go do something else. Continue here and you will be blocked. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Engineer-005: Reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize him as far-right. That's how we do things here. I suggest this is not the hill you want to get blocked on. soibangla (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no good reason to keep opening new sections for discussion of the same issue on this talk page, and we should not try to decide on our own whether we agree with what the sources say or not. As far as I can tell, the sources in question are not generally considered highly partisan or otherwise unreliable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack. Richinstead (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)