Talk:Scott Perry (politician)

Perry's CSpan Comments on Hitler and US Presidents During Interview

It seems that Scott Perry believes that Hitler was not the source of Germany's Abuse under the Nazis. Perry sees Hitler as a partner under a social organization which collectively directed the horrors which occurred during WW2 under the NAZIS. In addition during his interview on CSpan he alludes to the concept that American presidents who supported or ignored slavery are not comparable to Hitler in their values or apathy. This should be recorded for posterity at least here in the Wikipedia comments section.

2405:9800:BC30:7644:A994:7F19:C0C4:53 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The article's External links section includes a link to Perry's C-SPAN appearances, including this one. —ADavidB 13:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Refusal to wear masks indoors

The editor 'Marquardtika' removed reliably sourced content on Perry refusing to wear a mask while he was in a confined space with other legislators during a deadly pandemic. The content is reliably sourced and says a lot about the subject of the article. Marquardtika claims that Perry, who aided Trump in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, may have been in shock when the pro-Trump mob invaded the Capitol and that this explains why Perry refused to wear the mask. But that is original research and there has been nothing to indicate that he was in shock or that he refused to wear the mask due to shock. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not everything that is reliably sourced belongs in an article. It's our job as editors to decide what is noteworthy and encyclopedic in the long run. I don't think the fact that Perry didn't choose to wear a surgical mask on his face while a violent mob stormed the capitol is particularly notable. The storming of the capitol was a historic and unprecedented event, and a surgical mask wasn't going to protect him from the insurrectionists armed with deadly weapons. Marquardtika (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The mask was there to protect him and those around him from contracting COVID, not against the mob. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of content we shouldn't be dumping into every political BLP. Springee (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This obviously ought to be included: the pandemic was raging at that time, other members of Congress wore masks while in lockdown and urged all their colleagues (especially the arch conservatives like Perry) to stop putting everyone at risk and just don a mask - which were offered to the holdouts repeatedly. It speaks directly and clearly to Perry's mindset and political attitudes, which are relevant. But on the other hand, there are some well known partisan editors active on this page and I suspect they will continue to fight tooth and nail to exclude such information about indefensible behavior. 'He musta been in shock' is really precious, I have to say! 72.86.133.117 (talk)

"Nominee" or "Candidate"

@AlsoWukai: You have, not uncommonly, confused two separate processes. Nomination is the process of a political party selecting it's nominee to become the candidate for office. The winning nominee is selected from among a group of hopefuls who have put themselves in contention for their party's nomination. That winning nominee then becomes the party's official candidate on the ballot. Nominees are on the party's ballot. Candidates are on the general election ballot. Consider, if you run as an independent, no party has nominated you. Yet you are still a candidate without ever having been a nominee. See candidate vs. nominee, the Library of Congress, candidate and Presidential nominee. To be fair, several sources use the terms interchangeably, so that is undoubtedly the cause of the continued confusion. But as an encyclopedia, we have an obligation to try to get it right and not perpetuate that confusion. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter. X4n6 (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course independents are not nominees. But it is nonsensical to claim there was no Democratic nominee in these elections. Was there no Democratic nominee for president in the last election? Of course there was, and he won the election. AlsoWukai (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you concede independents are not nominees, then exactly what are they? The answer should be obvious. They are candidates. As are the party's ultimate nominees. But not all nominees become candidates, since not all nominees make the general election ballot. Just as not all candidates come from the nomination process. Do you still not understand this? Did you review the sources I provided and have better ones of your own? X4n6 (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You have this backward. Everyone who runs for an office is by definition a candidate for that office. But only some candidates are nominated. "Nominee" is thus the more precise term for those candidates. AlsoWukai (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So where are your sources supporting your view that I have it backward? You've been around here long enough to know that's how these things are settled. I've provided several that agree with me. Still waiting on yours. X4n6 (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems your own sources support AlsoWukai. From 'candidate vs. nominee', a candidate is "a person who is running in an election" (any of them), while a nominee is "one nominated, or proposed, by others ... for election to office". From the 'Library of Congress' source, some candidates become nominees via their party conventions, as "modern national conventions don't select candidates. Instead, they launch nominees". —ADavidB 12:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you understand the context. At issue is what to call those on the general election ballot. As you rightly point out, my sources say those individuals are candidates, not nominees. As WikiDiff said, a nominee is "one nominated, or proposed, by others for office or for election to office," while candidates are "A person who is running in an election." Obviously, the timeline is the primary determines the nominee, but the general election determines which candidate is elected. The primary isn't the election. And as all my sources indicate, those appearing on the ballot are candidates. Also, as I've already pointed out - which was already conceded - independents become candidates on the ballot, by definition, without ever going through any nominating process. So if we're in the general election, the only term that covers everyone on the ballot, regardless of how they got there, is candidate. Certainly not nominee. X4n6 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The question is not what term "covers everyone on the ballot". We use the term best suited to each. Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and many others ran for president in the last election. That made them candidates for president. Then the Democratic Party convened and nominated Biden, making him the nominee. "Nominee" is thus the most informative term to use for the winner of a party's primary competing in a general election. To call the various Democratic nominees Perry has faced mere "candidates" is not as informative; it leaves open the possibility that they were not nominated. AlsoWukai (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

By your own explanation, you've defined two completely separate things. But you still draw a conclusion not supported by your own examples. You wrote: "...ran for president in the last election. That made them candidates for president." Correct. A candidate is a person running for office. Then you wrote: "...the Democratic Party convened and nominated Biden, making him the nominee." Also correct. A nominee is a person nominated by their political party. I've said both things consistently from the beginning - as have all the sources. Which is likely why, despite repeated requests, you've been unable to provide any sources that say differently. The question of what to call everyone on the ballot is simply another way of asking what to call those who are running in an election. As you have agreed, they are candidates. Nominees references just the nominating process. All nominees are candidates, but not all candidates were nominees. Nominees are simply the winning candidates within their party. Also please see independent politician. So calling those running in an election a nominee is wrong. It not only excludes independents, but it also only defines the nominating process, not the election itself. The phrase "the Democratic nominee" simply references that nominating process. But it also ignores the fact that the Democratic nominee becomes the Democratic candidate. So the term candidate is correct because it defines everyone running for office. While nominee only defines those who won the party's nomination to - wait for it - become the party's candidate. X4n6 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

What I, and I understand AlsoWukai, disagree with is in your final three sentences, right after "that nominating process". I see no particular need to use a consistent term for each person, or some collective term that applies to all of them, as they arrive on the ballot by different paths. Some are nominated by their party, and independents remain independent candidates. A nominating process makes one of several candidates the party's nominee, and there is no evident reason to discontinue the use of "nominee" afterward. That term continues to distinguish them from others who didn't pass nomination. Party "candidate" doesn't refer clearly to a single individual, especially not to the extent as "nominee". Thus, I see "nominee" as the better word to use for a nominee. —ADavidB 16:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You still fail to understand that these words have actual definitions. As has been said for days now, nominee defines the winner of a nomination. Candidate defines someone running in an election. There's no way around those undisputed definitions. So using nominee to define someone running in an election, is using nominee incorrectly. Period. As Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus makes clear, candidate and nominee are not synonyms. They are not interchangeable. Just "related." So while you may "see no particular need to use a consistent term," Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As the many grammarians on this project will tell you, we have a particular responsibility to use terms consistent with their actual definitions. X4n6 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The partisan election context is quite evident in this article. When a political party nominates one person for an election, that person is the party's nominee for the office until the election is decided. What other definition of "nominee" is considered to be misunderstood in this article's context? —ADavidB 04:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

In 2020, Trump won the Republican nomination. He won to become the party's nominee, but he lost as the party's candidate. I'm pretty sure he'd explain to you that it was far more important to be the winning candidate, instead of just the winning nominee. Three times the article erroneously references the "Democratic nominee" in the context of the result of the election itself. Within that context, we now know, the "Democratic candidate" is the correct term. X4n6 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

We're simply identifying those whom Perry defeated on an election ballot. The purpose is to identify the individual that represented their party on the November ballot (because their party nominated them and only them). Writing "Biden won against Republican nominee Trump in 2020" would be just as clear. Where's the problem? —ADavidB 11:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"We're simply identifying those whom Perry defeated on an election ballot." Exactly! The word that describes those individuals is candidates. It's an irrelevant given that, if they had a party affiliation and that party had a nominating process, they were nominated. Because that's irrelevant in the context of the election or its outcome. But what if there was no nominating process? What then? What if there was an open election where several candidates with party affiliations all appeared on the ballot? The recent recall attempt of the governor of California saw 46 people on the ballot, identifying either their political parties, or as independents. But none were party nominees, despite their claimed party affiliations. They were all candidates. Balletpedia used "candidate" 163 times in that report. "Nominee" wasn't even referenced once. Had any of them won, they would have become governor without ever having been party nominee. The point, as you admit, is to identify who won the election, not who was nominated. Every source says that, by definition, candidates win/lose elections - whether their candidacy stems from being party nominees or not. You've offered no opposing sources or new, logical counterarguments. Just your determined insistence on ignoring RS definitions and commonsense, to repeat your preferred interpretation. It is frankly baffling from an editor of your experience. X4n6 (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Nominee" still most clearly identifies the one candidate whose party put them on the November ballot. Referring to that person as just a party candidate does not distinguish them from the other candidates in the party who ran. That context is made clear with "nominee". If this were an open election, the description would be different; it was not open, however. We're succinctly identifying that Perry won against the named party nominee who made it to the November ballot. Please don't use personal attacks. —ADavidB 12:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You're just repeating your unsourced opinion which has been directly contradicted by ALL the reliable sources. "Candidate" refers to the person running, "nominee" merely refers to a selection process. Party hopefuls are primary candidates until a nominee is determined, then that nominee becomes the party's candidate on the ballot in the general election. If you want the word that "most clearly identifies the one candidate whose party put them on the November ballot" then name their party. Saying not "a" but "the" "Republican candidate" makes their route to the ballot crystal clear. It is also the correct word to use in that context, per ALL the reliable sources. But perhaps the best solution is to simply move this to an RfC and see how many/if editors are persuaded that we should use dictionary definitions, thesauruses and other reliable sources to settle word disagreements. Also to be clear, I called you an experienced editor. In what world is that a personal attack? I resent your implication that it is, as that itself is a personal attack. Again, it appears past time for an RfC. X4n6 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Using "the Democratic candidate" suggests that only one ran, which is not the case. Identifying someone as the opposing party's "nominee" identifies them as that party's chosen one. Regarding the other matter, expressing bafflement in contrast with an editor's experience is an ad hominem attack. It is not the only one included above, just the one that prompted me to address it. I suggest review of WP:TPNO and WP:NPA. —ADavidB 04:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In a general election, "the" Democratic candidate is the Democratic nominee who appears on the ballot with the party's endorsement, regardless of how many ran. And expressing bafflement is not an ad hominem, it's an expression of surprise. I'm confident those are acceptable and routine. But claiming it's an attack when none was intended or reasonably inferred is a red herring. I suggest review of WP:CIVIL, WP:IUC and WP:DCW. Also WP:V and WP:SOURCES. Then perhaps we can return to resolving the edit conflict. X4n6 (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The general election is not mentioned except in the first instance, and then only by its November date. Though not succinct, perhaps mention of the quantity of Democratic challengers, in addition to the lone one in the general election would help resolve this disagreement. I did not specify only experience or only bafflement, but the contrast of one with the other as the attack. Counter-accusation does not defend against ad hominem usage. Consider the amount of "you"/"your" usage in the above responses. There has been too much concentration on the editor over the content in question. —ADavidB 14:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In all 3 instances the Republican primary is mentioned in the past tense, so the general election is being referenced. Especially when in each case, the very next sentence is the election result including the margin of victory. If the number of Democratic primary hopefuls is significant it could be included. Otherwise it might be superfluous. But the 2012 results do mention a seven-way Republican primary, and no opposition in the Republican primaries in 2014 or 2016. So that could be included on the Democratic side as well. As long as it's equally brief. Continuing to bring up accusations after being told there was no attack/intent violates policy/guidelines to move on and keep the focus on content. Lastly, consider the amount of "I" usage in the above responses and the "you" responses are explained. X4n6 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Filling in some primary contender information, adding sources, and applying compromise, the following is proposed as new and replacement content in the article's U.S. House of Representatives Elections subsection:

2012

Main article: 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania § District 4

[...]

Voters put forth Harry Perkinson in a two-way Democratic primary, whom Perry defeated in the general election, 60%–34%.

2014

Main article: 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania § District 4

In 2014, Perry was unchallenged in the Republican primary, and the only candidate in the Democratic primary was former Harrisburg mayor Linda D. Thompson, against whom Perry won 75%–25% in the general election.

2016

Main article: 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania § District 4

Perry was unchallenged in the 2016 Republican primary. Democrat Joshua Burkholder of Harrisburg was reported in January 2016 as Perry's opposition. Burkholder withdrew from the primary, and no Democratic results are included for the district among the year's primary election returns. Burkholder made it to the general election ballot via write-in votes, and Perry defeated him 66%–34%.

2018

[...]

2020

Main article: 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania § District 10

Perry had no Republican challengers in 2020, and term-limited Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale won a two-way Democratic primary. Perry was reelected with 53% of the vote in the general election.

—ADavidB 03:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Perhaps these minor revisions are helpful:

2012

Main article: 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania § District 4

[...]

Harry Perkinson advanced in a two-way Democratic primary. Perry won in the general election, 60%–34%.

2014

Main article: 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania § District 4

In 2014, Perry was unchallenged in the Republican primary and former Harrisburg mayor, Linda D. Thompson was unchallenged in the Democratic primary. Perry won 75%–25% in the general election.

2016

Main article: 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania § District 4

Perry won the 2016 election with no primary challenge and no official Democratic opponent. Joshua Burkholder of Harrisburg, a political novice, withdrew from the Democratic primary after too many signatures on his qualifying petition were successfully challenged. His subsequent write-in candidacy won the Democratic primary, but he ran unaffiliated in the general election. Perry defeated Burkholder, 66%–34%.

2020

Main article: 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania § District 10

In 2020, Perry had no Republican primary challenge, and Pennsylvania auditor general, Eugene DePasquale won a two-way Democratic primary. Perry was reelected with 53% of the vote in the general election.

An additional source was also added to support the ce for 2016. X4n6 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the space between the first two of five Burkholder/2016 source citations is needed, and removal of the comma before DePasquale's name, or insertion of "the" before his former position, or 's after "Pennsylvania", would improve grammar in the 2020 subsection. Otherwise, it looks good for inclusion. —ADavidB 13:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Agree on the space between citations, it was inadvertent. For consistency, the comma between DePasquale's title and name, is the same as the comma between Thompson's former title and name. Inserting "the" is innocuous enough, but should also be consistently applied. After those minor items, agreed that everything looks done. Feel free to add them to the article. X4n6 (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

These agreed-upon changes are now incorporated into the article. —ADavidB 13:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Much better. Although the terminology issue wasn't resolved here. But it's likely a topic for wider input anyway. X4n6 (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

2020 Insurrection

Scott Perry attempted to invalidate all of Pennsylvania’s presidential votes in an attempt to secure Donald Trump’s reelection. This is significant and should be mentioned on the page. 2601:985:980:5040:7905:AA21:634F:31AC (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you have indirectly brought up an issue: the article is better served if this sub-sub-section were promoted to a section by itself. I have done so. Buried as it was, the section was hard to find, and most of Perry's involvement in the insurrection was unrelated to his duties as a Congressperson. If you have sources for material that isn't already covered in Scott Perry (politician)#Involvement in attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election please share it here. -- M.boli (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2024

Change

 considered firing Jeffrey A. Rosen

to

 considered firing Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen

as this is first mention of Rosen in the article. Paul Heckbert (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Summaries differ

Why does the wikipedia summary i my google search say far right politician but the full wikipedia article just says politician. 2601:988:C201:2D60:2CC1:18A7:8D6C:5A21 (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)