Talk:Doug Mastriano

Archives (Index)

2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/August 2024/June

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Mislabeling Mastriano with opinionated titles

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. —⁠ ⁠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)

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)

What’s his specific denomination?

We need to find out and put it in personal life. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Personal Life section already says that he worships at a Mennonite church. There is nothing more to be said unless Reliable Sources make a point of adding some further description to his religious preference. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

For someone who is not a religious leader, it is usually better not to discuss a person's religion, or at least not to focus on it extensively. There should definitely not be a presumption that figuring out and reporting on religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should be done for every WP:BLP (or for every politician's BLP). See, e.g., WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) ..., and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The specific denomination is the CMC (formerly known as Conservative Mennonite Conference). I am a Mennonite and grew up in this conference. In their 2019 pastors' conference brochure, Doug Mastriano's wife is a featured speaker, and the bio says, "She is the wife of Douglas, homeschool mom of Josiah, and a member of Pond Bank Community Church." The church was formerly known as Pond Bank Mennonite Church, and is part of the CMC.

It's not incorrect to say he's a Mennonite as a general term, but CMC is very different from Mennonite Church USA, the mainstream denomination. — Zimmerdale (talk) 03:25, 25 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) 15:39, 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

Eagle Scout moniker added to lead

I would like to add the FACT that he obtained the rank of Eagle Scout to the lead as it’s a defining characteristic. . Richinstead (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello? Richinstead (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't consider it a defining characteristic or a major part of his notability. It's already discussed in the "Early life" section, which seems fine. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I got mine too; I wonder how many convicted felons got theirs? Its a significant bit of growing up but its not lead material. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of cited content

@Helwr: kindly read the above discussions. The consensus, backed by Wikipedia policy, is that multiple reliable sources demonstrate that Mastriano is on the far-right, thereby that is what we have in the lead. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

those are unreliable highly biased left wing sources. The edit stands corrected. Wikipedia is not a DNC platform, lefty JameyRivendell (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Non-constructive comment from blocked sock struck. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the hyperlinked “far-right”

You are only hyperlinking the term to gaslight and disparage the subject. I recommend keeping the moniker “far-right” but removing the hyperlink. 2600:1016:B00D:6EFE:183A:E80:83C4:B096 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

We include references to show we're not just making it up, but that reliable sources say it. We're not Conservapedia. soibangla (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

No, we're far-left-pedia, clearly. All the wording in this article is designed to make Mastriano look bad. It's so obvious. JackGunn (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to hyperlink the term “far-right” other than to link to a page that has scarier things posted there (Hitler, oh my!). We need to remove it. Richinstead (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Early Life

Doug Mastriano did not grow up in Hightstown, NJ. He was from Roosevelt, NJ, and his family lived down the street from me on Lake Drive. After attending Roosevelt Public School (RPS) for the primary grades, he most likely did attend Hightstown High School (HHS), as did most of us graduating RPS - it was the closest high school even though it was in another county: Roosevelt, formerly Jersey Homesteads, is in Monmouth Co., while HHS is in Mercer Co. Please correct this. 204.88.250.14 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a published source for this? PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Political bias

Why, when wikipedia itself warns against political bias, and reserves the right to lock an article to avoid this very thing, has the far left political bias been locked into this article to prevent editing? This is one of the most biased political articles I've ever seen on wikipedia and the fact that this bias has been locked and forbidden from edit is a disgrace, and a terrible shame in light of what Wikipedia was originally supposed to be. JackGunn (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RANT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)