Jump to content

Talk:Doug Mastriano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Engineer-005 (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 19 May 2022 (→Left wing bias: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 (talk • contribs) 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]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Media Matters is allowed. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've added two more sources calling him "far right", NPR and NBC. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

What’s his specific denomination?

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Mastriano&oldid=1088712340"