Talk:Ryan Mackenzie

Content for page - Votes and Viewpoints

Hello fellow editors!

I recently attempted to expand Rep. Mackenzie's article with information about his legislative experience and impact. However, this content was removed by @ATown1516. Upon reviewing the page history, I noticed that @ATown1516 had previously removed content added by @HistorianAJG regarding the 2020 election.

I'm seeking clarity on why this information might be considered unsuitable for inclusion. Rep. Mackenzie's legislative accomplishments and voting record seem particularly relevant to his biography. Similar information is routinely included in Wikipedia articles for other politicians across the political spectrum, from Senator Ted Cruz to Senator Bernie Sanders. There is also already information included about his legislative impact and views - I am not sure why these additions would differ?

The additions I proposed were carefully sourced from reputable, nonpartisan institutions:

• The Supreme Court of the United States (Rep. Mackenzie's amicus brief)
• The New York Times
• The ACLU of Pennsylvania
• The Pennsylvania General Assembly
• PBS

In discussing potentially controversial topics, I used neutral terminology. For instance, I employed the medical term "abortion" rather than politically charged phrases like "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice."

I've included the proposed additions below, along with their citations, for your review. I believe these additions would significantly enhance the article's comprehensiveness and value to readers seeking factual information about Rep. Mackenzie's career.

I welcome any guidance or input from the community on how we might incorporate this well-sourced, relevant information into the article while adhering to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and notability.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

The additions in question:

Presidential Election 2020

In 2020, Mackenzie supported efforts to invalidate the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.(1) On December 4th, 2020, he co-signed a letter urging Congress to reject Pennsylvania’s Electoral College votes, effectively seeking to disregard the votes(2) of Pennsylvanians. Additionally, he joined an amicus brief(3) in support of a Texas lawsuit that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Pennsylvania's certified election results.

Support for House Bill 1948 (2015) - Abortion Restriction Legislation

In 2015, Rep. Mackenzie voted in favor of Pennsylvania House Bill 1948,(4) a measure that sought to impose new restrictions on abortion care. The bill(5) aimed to lower the legal limit for abortions from 24 to 20 weeks of pregnancy and ban dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, a medically standard and safe method typically used for second-trimester abortions starting around 13 weeks. By banning D&Es, the bill would have restricted access to abortion before 20 weeks, reducing medical options and potentially requiring more invasive procedures.

The legislation had no exceptions for rape or incest but allowed abortions if necessary to save the woman’s life or prevent permanent bodily harm. It also introduced criminal penalties for healthcare providers who performed D&Es or abortions past 20 weeks in violation of the bill's terms. These penalties included third-degree felony charges, which in Pennsylvania carry a maximum prison sentence of up to 7 years and a fine of up to $15,000.(6)

The bill repealed Pennsylvania’s spousal notification(7) requirement, which had mandated that married women inform their spouses before obtaining an abortion. This repeal aligned with the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which found spousal notification laws unconstitutional as they imposed undue burden on women seeking healthcare.

Although the bill passed in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, it did not advance to a final vote in the Senate, and thus, it did not become law.

Support for Senate Bill 106 (2021) - Constitutional Amendment Limiting the Right to Abortion Care

In 2021, Rep. Ryan Mackenzie voted in favor(8) of PA Senate Bill 106,(9) which proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution. A key provision in the bill declared that the Constitution would not guarantee the right to abortion care(10) with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. The amendment aimed to limit legal protections for abortion at the state level, aligning with broader efforts to restrict access through constitutional changes.

Senate Bill 106 passed both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly but will require approval in another session to be put to a public vote.

1. Karni, Annie (October 17, 2024). "In Race for Congress, Republican Election Deniers and Skeptics Seek Swing Seats". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 16, 2024. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

2. "Pa. Republican Lawmakers Haven't Given Up Blocking Biden". PBS39 WLVT. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

3. Gerow, Esq., Charles (December 10, 2020). "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE AND BRIEF FOR MEMBERS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF" (PDF). Supreme Court of The United States. Archived from the original on October 17, 2024. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

4. "Bill Information - House Bill 1948; Regular Session 2015-2016". The official website for the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

5. "Bill Information - House Bill 1948; Regular Session 2015-2016". The official website for the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

6. "Title 18". The official website for the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Retrieved October 17, 2024

7. "The Supreme Court . Printable Page | PBS". www.thirteen.org. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

8. "House Roll Calls - 2021 RCS# 1156". The official website for the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

9. "Regular Session 2021-2022 Senate Bill 0106 P.N. 1857". www.legis.state.pa.us. Retrieved October 17, 2024.

10. "SB 106 | Constitutional amendments to deny abortion rights, change voting and election procedures, and limit executive authority [constitutional amendment] | ACLU Pennsylvania". www.aclupa.org. May 31, 2022. TeddyMoosevelt (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding link to relevant UserTalk for transparency. User talk:ATown1516

Hope this is the proper etiquette! Please excuse my ignorance if not - still learning. TeddyMoosevelt (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the fact that the subject of this page is currently a candidate in a high-profile and extremely important election, with voting in such election currently ongoing and due to finish in less than three weeks, I think that some caution is warranted in terms of politically sensitive edits to this page.

Regarding these particular edits, it seems notable that the two topics which have been requested for inclusion are abortion and challenges to the 2020 election, given that these are the two issues which have been the focus of most of the attacks made against the subject of this page by his opponent in the aforementioned election. That one of the abortion bills (HB 1948) mentioned in the edit was debated in 2015 and failed to become law gives further grounds for suspicion that this edit might have been made with political rather than informative intent in mind. Why not include information about Rep. Mackenzie's positions and legislative history on other issues which voters have indicated via numerous opinion surveys that they prioritize in this year's elections (economy, inflation, immigration, crime, foreign policy)? A revision covering a broader base of such issues would almost certainly have generated less concern from other editors.

Further, I do not think that this edit was treated differently from similar edits to similar pages. If someone tried to edit the page of Rep Mackenzie's opponent in a way that echoed and complemented his most common attacks against her record, I have little doubt that such a revision would have been removed in short order given the proximity to the election and the seemingly partisan nature of such an edit. I am generally supportive of fleshing out the pages of legislators with neutral and factual information about their records, but the timing and content of this edit, in my opinion, provide reasonable grounds for concern. 2603:7000:2540:4474:9048:99AE:FA9F:94F6 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response @2603:7000:2540:4464:9048:99AE:FA9F:94F6! Do you have specific suggestions for how to improve or modify the contributions?

I appreciate your points about exercising caution during elections and I understand the heightened sensitivity around politically relevant edits at this time. That said, I’d still like to collaborate on improving the page in a way that reflects Rep. Mackenzie’s record comprehensively and aligns with Wikipedia’s standards.

To address your concerns directly:

1. Timing and Intent: I can assure you that my intent was not to make politically motivated edits but rather to provide neutral, verifiable information. Election integrity and abortion are central topics to Rep. Mackenzie’s legislative record and public positions. I understand your point about these topics being discussed in the campaign, but they are also objectively relevant to his biography. My focus is on including relevant, fact-based content, just as other candidates’ pages document their positions and voting records, even during election cycles. Based on your feedback, I looked at the history and noticed Rep. Mackenzie’s page has been edited several times in the past month. Interestingly, the same user who removed my additions also removed other content about Rep. Mackenzie's election integrity stance and a congressional race earlier this year. This suggests the timing may not be the only concern, but it’s definitely worth a ponder.
2. Broadening the Scope: I agree that adding a wider range of topics, such as Rep. Mackenzie’s positions on the economy, crime, and other policy areas, would provide a more comprehensive view. It's a great idea to expand the page! Starting with key votes or issues with clear sources is a typical approach when building out political biographies on Wikipedia.
3. Neutrality and Partisan Concerns: The goal is to maintain Wikipedia’s mission of presenting fact-based, neutral, and well-sourced information. If you feel any specific part of my additions doesn't meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards, I'm eager to work together to refine it. Based on your note, I also checked Rep. Wild’s page - her voting record and issue stances are documented without issue. My goal is to align with Wikipedia's standard and ensure balanced, factual coverage.
4. Why Include a 2015 Vote? Even though HB 1948 didn’t pass, voting records, regardless of a bill’s outcome, are still considered relevant because they highlight a legislator’s values and priorities. Rep. Mackenzie’s vote on this bill reflects a stance that remains relevant given the ongoing state, and national discussion around policy. Similarly, his academic background from years ago is included in his biography because it provides meaningful context to who he is as a legislator.
5. Transparency: I noticed you’re contributing from an IP address. While I dig and respect your privacy, IP contributions can raise questions about potential conflicts of interest, especially when they involve politically sensitive content close to an election. Of course, I’m not suggesting any ill intent, but I do believe transparency is important to build trust and foster collaboration in these discussions.
6. Collaborative Solution: I’d love you're feedback, but I’d be happy to involve editors through Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process to ensure neutrality and fairness. Thus far I haven't been provided with specific feedback.

Thank you again for your time and input. I look forward to working together to improve the page. If you have specific concerns about any sources or phrasing I used, please let me know. I’d be glad to adjust my contributions to better meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Thanks again for your time and thoughts!

Best,

@TeddyMoosevelt TeddyMoosevelt (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The IP above did provide you with specific feedback, so I'm not sure what exactly is the issue. More generally, you'd want to present facts if secondary sources have reported on them and provided analysis. Presenting a specific part of the voting record would otherwise fail WP:DUE.

Other candidates might have commentary in secondary sources about specific points of their voting record – that doesn't mean the structure of their article automatically translates to this one.

Also, please do not use ChatGPT to write responses for you (the bullet points-with-bolded-titles structure is a dead giveaway), and please do not accuse someone of conflict of interest only on the basis that they are an IP editor (WP:Casting aspersions and Wikipedia:IPs are people too). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your specific and actionable feedback @Chaotic Enby. As a first-timer, I wasn’t aware that secondary sources were preferred - that insight is really helpful.

To answer your question, I was hoping for specific suggestions on how to adjust the proposed content to meet Wikipedia's standards; I thought that was protocol.

My revision was initially deleted without feedback. When I asked for feedback, I was told that I was “clearly plugging in” “DCCC press releases” and referencing a website I'd never heard of. I’m just an average person. The references I provided were from reputable, nonpartisan sources. The accusation was unfounded and insulting to my character. I believe the standard on Wikipedia is to maintain civility and assume positive intent, rather than degrade.

If I'd received feedback about secondary sources being key to illustrate notability then, I would have happily adjusted the references. It was difficult to determine how to improve the page based solely on an attack on my character, so I requested feedback from a broader group. (~45% of the current references on Rep. Mackenzie's page are primary sources.)

I respect the importance of neutrality, which is why sought feedback. My intent was to present facts about Rep. Mackenzie's record and I agree that broader coverage of Rep. Mackenzie's career would be beneficial. Looking at other pages, I don't believe the expectation is that one person could cover and entire legislative career alone, but I'm still learning and could be mistaken . Based on the IP ed’s feedback, I looked into Rep. Mackenzie's record on immigration and I’m excited to look into it more - learning that the 6 bills he's running on are still in Committee was eye-opening and I wouldn't have known without you. I regret that I don't have the time to create a more comprehensive biography of Rep. Mackenzie's service by myself, but appreciate the encouragement.

While I understand the sensitivity about election proximity, many politicians' pages are being actively edited, including Rep. Mackenzie's. Applying different standards is inconsistent with principles of neutrality.

As I said, it was never my intent to imply bad faith by mentioning the use of an IP address, only to raise the issue transparency. Regardless of intent, I sincerely apologize for hurting the IP editor's feelings and I'm grateful for their encouragement to do better next time.

I won’t pursue the expansion of this biography, but maintain that the suggested additions are categorically significant aspects of Rep. Mackenzie's career that would feature in any biography. While these are sensitive subjects, their sensitivity does not negate their notability or render them “inappropriate."

• • Whether one believes efforts in the 2020 were to protect election integrity or overturn an election, Rep. Mackenzie's role in these initiatives are pivotal events in his life and service. They are unambiguously important to Pennsylvania and United States history.
  • Whether one views the issue of abortion as a matter of protecting the sanctity of life or safeguarding the right to bodily autonomy, this legislation has a profound impact on the lives of Pennsylvanians, particularly the proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution, which remains under consideration. After further research, both secondary sources and campaign materials indicate that Rep. Mackenzie himself sees this as a significant part of his political record. To wit, I now know his campaign initially promoted his work to restrict abortion access, but later removed from these references from public platforms. While one editor suggested that these votes are “not particularly noteworthy,” the evidence suggests that they are.

Ultimately, a politician's actions are a matter of fact, not bias. Suggesting otherwise implies that merely stating someone's political actions is inherently partisan. If one presumes bias based on a neutral restatement of the facts of Rep. Mackenzie’s actions, it may be more reflective of one’s own bias than it is of the facts.

I took effort to include relevant information, use neutral language, and framing. I made every effort to seek feedback to improve this content. Upon reflection, perhaps I should have included a more complete view of his work on abortion, like establishing a definition for an "unborn child" "as an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until expulsion or extraction from its mother" and rules around burying/interring/cremating fetal remains (HB 118 and HB 1890). I apologize for my lack of diligence and appreciate your commitment to providing readers with helpful information. I see now that failing to include all of his work in this arena was a failure on my part. On the upside, I'm so much more informed personally now and appreciate that gift. Thank you.

I respect Wikipedia's collaborative nature and the need for caution with sensitive topics. It's also important to address unfounded accusations and maintain consistent standards across articles.

I won't engage further on this topic, but thanks so much for your help, and providing me with an education. This has been most illuminating. Wikipedia and Pennsylvania voters seeking a neutral record are better for having information on his record deleted.

Wishing all of you a blessed week. TeddyMoosevelt (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)