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 Unauthoress (talk | contribs) at 10:33, 3 September 2022 (→Placement of "far-right" hyperlink in lead.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

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

Enough of us agree that “far right” should be removed. Let’s remove it then. Richinstead (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, the majority of editors agree that needs to be changed, so change it already. Richinstead (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not accurate. There is clear consensus to include among people referencing actual policy (I don't count the QAnon troll who has been indef blocked), and it is well-sourced. Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your political agenda. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:02, 17 August 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]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mastriano, who worships at a Mennonite church, has said he does not identify as a Christian nationalist, telling the New Yorker last year, “Is this a term you fabricated? What does it mean and where have I indicated that I am a Christian Nationalist?” https://www.inquirer.com/politics/doug-mastriano-governor-christian-nationalism-qanon-20220504.html?outputType=amp Richinstead (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I concur. TheEfficientMan (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Who are you to decide? Richinstead (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I’m suggesting the author of those article are biased, yes. Richinstead (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are “far left” because I said it and therefore it must be true. Richinstead (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Why are you the sole decider? Richinstead (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good. We finally agree on something. Haha Richinstead (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

For those who actually earned the rank, many consider it “lead worthy.”

Doug but it in his senate bio:

“Doug Mastriano is a combat veteran and the son of a career US Navy man. He retired from the U.S. Army in November 2018 after 30 years of active duty as a Colonel. Doug is an Eagle Scout and worked as a paperboy, janitor, security guard, short-order cook, pizza delivery person and dishwasher.”

We need to put it in the lead as well. Thanks!

Source: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/senate_bio.cfm?id=1869&mobile_choice=suppress Richinstead (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Those are biased comments. Richinstead (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I agree with you. Who is running this account anyway? I thought we all play a role in making this page better and unbiased. I guess not. Richinstead (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of church and state “myth”

I know this sentence is listed to paint him as a conspiracy theorist, but the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture, according to experts. Therefore it is a myth. So, Doug is in good company with Michael W. McConnell the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, as well as Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/recordings/michael-mcconnell-religion-and-law-there-connection Richinstead (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Please read Separation of church and state in the United States. The separation of church and state is a key aspect of the First Amendment. This has nothing to do with religion in American culture, it is about religion in American government. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It even states in the first flipping sentence that it’s a “metaphor.” Richinstead (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Mastriano

Just starting this conversation now, so we can get approval from the Wikipedia overlords to change his status if needed. Thanks! :) Richinstead (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RANT Hyderabad22 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2022 (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) 22:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the consensus to make note of Mastriano's far-right positions in the lead, but I believe this is better suited for the third paragraph than the third. The first paragraph is a general overview; information that can be gleaned about the subject from the onset. The third paragraph is specifically about his far-right positions and actions. Bluerules (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's suitable to include in the opening sentence per current consensus (as mentioned by Pennsylvania2) as a descriptor, as it's a fairly crucial part of why Mastriano is as notable as he is - evidenced by the sheer number of publications that refer to him as a far-right politician and the fact he's referred to as expressly being "far-right" in coverage of all the stories he's involved in. Compare it to Marjorie Taylor Greene's page, for example. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mastriano is notable for being a state senator and a major party's gubernatorial nominee. Like I said, him being far-right is definitely important enough to acknowledge in the lead, but it's not why this article exists. He would be notable for being a politician without the far-right views. Basing the wording of this article on Greene's article would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, I am open to keeping the far-right hyperlink in the first paragraph. I think the second sentence could say this:
"A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his far-right views."
Would anyone support moving the far-right hyperlink to the second sentence? This way, we would connect his political party and ideology in the same sentence instead of identifying his views before we identify his party. Bluerules (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another potential way to incorporate the far-right hyperlink into the second sentence:
"Known for his far-right views, he is the Republican nominee in the 2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election." Bluerules (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the amount of coverage he has received as a result of his far-right political views make it an important enough factor to preface "politician" with it in the first sentence. Also, OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions is it not? Nonetheless, I was giving MTG's article as a comparable example of a similar far-right politician and how it's dealt with in her article, so I'm not seeing how this is a case of OTHERSTUFF at all. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One component of OTHERSTUFF is we can't write articles simply based on how other articles are written. We're not allowed to identify Mastriano as "far-right" in the first sentence because Greene's article does the same thing; articles are written by different editors who reached a different consensus. Likewise, we can't write Mastriano's article based on how Bernie Sanders' article is written. In Sanders' case, he has also received significant coverage for his democratic socialist views, but "democratic socialist" (or even far-left) does not preface "politician" in the first sentence. His democratic socialist position does not appear until the last paragraph and that paragraph is entirely focused on his views.
While I can't use Sanders' article as an argument to rewrite Mastriano's article, I believe this is a better way to write Mastriano's article. We keep his viewpoints focused in one paragraph instead of conflating basic information with information we have to explain later. Nevertheless, I am open to keeping the far-right hyperlink in the first paragraph and moving it to the second sentence. Bluerules (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, because I'm not seeing anything in the essay that says this. Anyway, once again, I wasn't saying "we should write it this way because MTG's article is written as thus", merely giving an example of how a politician's far-right views can be incorporated into the lede. I maintain my original position. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, the relevant guideline here is WP:OTHERCONTENT, not OTHERSTUFF. And looking past this guideline, Greene's article technically doesn't call her a "far-right politician". It calls her a "far-right conspiracy theorist" after identifying her as a politician and businesswoman. The "far-right" component is more about the conspiracies she promotes than her political views in general. While I don't agree with this approach (I think it goes against the guideline that we only list primary occupations), it at least doesn't conflate her primary political occupation with her views.
Like I said, I open to moving the far-right hyperlink to the second sentence. I won't argue against the consensus, but I think that's a reasonable compromise. It would still be high up in the lead and one of the first things people see. Bluerules (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser!: @Hyderabad22: There is no consensus, other than between various left-wing editors on here to defame Mr. Mastriano and scam undecided voters to vote for the Democrat. Take your radical leftist views somewhere else. It is clear you are after people who lean to the right, including political candidates, and to beat them you will slander them since Wikipedia is anonymous and you cannot be sued or stopped. Wikipedia is supposed to be fair and impartial. Putting in the opening sentence that Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate in a razor thin race in PA is "far-right," and then linking to a page about Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan is not fair or impartial. And don't tell me you have "sources." Citing an a Politico article, an NBC News article and New York Times article are not objective or impartial articles. All three publications are openly left-wing. I am certain I an find lots of Fox News articles and Breitbart articles that describe AOC as far-left, but I don't see you changing her lead to say "far-left." This is all a scheme to try to sway undecided voters in PA in favor of the Democrat and away from Mastriano. Stop defaming conservatives on this website. BTW, there are only two genders, and women should not be able to murder their babies because they were promiscuous, got pregnant, and now don't feel like putting up with being uncomfortable for ninth months. And no, it is not there body. The baby has completely different DNA, and is another person. @Bluerules: is right.

I tend to side with the consensus here. Using this in the lead is an appropriate descriptor and should remain. It’s well cited and a major reason Mastriano is notable. Hyderabad22 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying "far-right" shouldn't be in the lead. I'm saying it shouldn't be in the very first sentence. Mastriano is not notable for being far-right. He is notable for holding state office and being a major party's nominee for being governor. Being "far-right" is important information about his political career, but not why this article exists.
In my opinion, it makes the most sense to include the far-right hyperlink in the third paragraph because that's specifically about his far-right views; instead of immediately labeling him far-right and not explaining his views until later, we keep his views focused into one paragraph that explains why he's far-right. Compare this to Bernie Sanders' article, which doesn't immediately call him an "American socialist politician"; his political views are entirely in the last paragraph. While we can't write articles based on others due to OTHERSTUFF, I think separating the individual's surface details and their political views is a good approach. Bluerules (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading and Incorrect use of Confederate Uniform controversy

You've cropped out the rest of the photograph, showing other folks in costume, and the section about this is really lacking context. The college allowed faculty to dress up— as it is by Gettysburg and PA has a strong re-enactment culture. And then below the picture whoever put it in goes off on an editorial-like tangent about why it's wrong. Unless it's Wikipedia policy to indict all re-enacters as believing all the policies and perspectives of the faction they fought for, this section needs to be given context or removed entirely. The bias is strong in this article. Mierria (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no response from him in any article detailing that was his reason for dressing up that day. Feel free to find a reliable source and cite it. Hyderabad22 (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section suggestion

The layout of this article has grown rather unwieldy and I think we need a way to group instances where Mastriano has had media attention drawn to his actions or political stances that are questionable. We need better subject delineation. Hyderabad22 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Mastriano&oldid=1108252699"