Jump to content

Talk:Doug Mastriano: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 165: Line 165:
Better be first to be pushing this issue
Better be first to be pushing this issue
Everyone wants this to get done [[Special:Contributions/67.141.250.138|67.141.250.138]] ([[User talk:67.141.250.138|talk]]) 15:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Everyone wants this to get done [[Special:Contributions/67.141.250.138|67.141.250.138]] ([[User talk:67.141.250.138|talk]]) 15:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

== 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.--[[User:Engineer-005|Engineer-005]] ([[User talk:Engineer-005|talk]]) 00:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:46, 17 May 2022

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Article section: Military decorations and badges

U.S. military decorations
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Legion of Merit
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Meritorious Service Medal
Joint Service Commendation Medal
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Army Commendation Medal with two Oak leaf clusters
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Army Achievement Medal with three Oak leaf clusters
U.S. service (campaign) medals and service and training ribbons
Bronze star
National Defense Service Medal with one service star
Bronze star
Bronze star
Bronze 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 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]