Talk:Blake Masters

Various potential bias issues

This article needs some extensive work to clear up obvious biases. A few of the most egregious problems: (1) A totally unexplained and out-of-context reference to Hermann Goering. (2) Describing his "personhood amendment" position as a "new position." (3) Saying that he supports the Great Replacement Theory even while acknowledging that he denies the theory. (4) Creating a spurious correlation between Masters and white nationalism using an immigration theory he denies. (5) Pointing out the fact that Peter Thiel is gay in the middle of a policy discussion.

I haven't even read the whole thing. These are just the problems that stick out to me. One problem is an accident. Multiple problems constitutes a pattern of bias against the candidate. People use Wikipedia to inform themselves on who to vote for and this article reads like it could have been written by his opposition. This whole article needs to be retooled by someone who doesn't have an axe to grind. 2603:8001:3A00:4A00:2097:36C8:C3F1:9B4B (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Praising Nazis is noteworthy. Do you not think that's newsworthy? Do you not think that's important information for voters to know when deciding whether to vote for a politician?

Have you considered that Blake Masters may just be a bad person who does and says bad things? Accurate reporting of people who do and say bad things is not bias. Davidmsterns (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Masters quoted a Nazi in his anti-war college essay to argue that the rich/powerful/governments manipulate public opinion to support wars, and that pro-war propaganda strategy is following the Nazi playbook. Wikipedia should put that in its proper context if we are going to include it at all, rather than just say he quoted a Nazi, or worse, praised a Nazi. I saw a revision of the essay paragraph that another editor had made that seemed reasonable, but it was reverted. If I can find it I'll add it back. BBQboffin (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Every World War II historian has probably quoted a Nazi. Context matters. That doesn't mean it's scandalous, and guilt by association should never be implied. Politically tinged "exclusives" that dredge up old writings, tweets, statements, etc. of an active political candidate, and present them out-of-context should be carefully scrutinized (the Times even admits the chat room writings were "unearthed and provided to The New York Times by opponents of Mr. Masters"). I think the entire section entitled "Chat room and blog post controversy" is overly-detailed, disproportionate weight and frankly quite shitty, and I don't even share any of Masters' political views (but I recognize that Wikipedians largely turn a blind eye to articles that make conservatives look bad). Wikipedians shouldn't cosplay as journalists and encyclopedia articles shouldn't read as wannabe newspaper articles. Condense, edit don't regurgitate. Avoid WP:RECENTISM. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Animalparty You are exactly correct. Firstly, just because an historical individual was associated, personally and/or by affiliation, with atrocities, inhuman behavior, and criminality, does not mean that every statement made by said individual (Göring, in this case) was in furtherance of, support of, or even in connection to, the abhorrent actions or beliefs of the individual or their associated movement. What I mean to say is, evil men don't only say evil things. Consider the plethora of quotes of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, even Joseph Stalin, which have become common proverbs, widely used, accepted and re-quoted regularly in everyday situations. All those men committed atrocities and were responsible for untold suffering. The figures of antiquity that I referenced are usually given more of a pass for their missteps than those of modern times, but the fact still stands. Stalin is a perfect example, however, as he is of the same time period as Göring, and directly responsible for far more mass murder than Göring (not that it's a competition). If I was to use Stalin's quote, "[q]uantity has a certain quality in and of itself", would people call me a communist and purport that I supported The Great Purge? Unlikely.

Secondly, it seems that this quote was taken to be more of a statement in effect of, "this is what the Nazis did/would have done." In other words, implying that the actions taken by the US in the lead-up to the Invasion of Iraq, were similar to the actions Nazis took to drum up support for WW2. This is an oft over-played narrative, in my opinion, but I actually think it's a completely valid point. Not only that, it's a stance that has been repeatedly taken by plenty of those in opposition to that conflict, which ironically, have tended to be those more left-leaning. All said, I don't think there could have been a more apt quote to describe the atmosphere present in the US leading up to that invasion, and the "flag waving" policy meant to drum it up.

I don't believe Wikipedia uses algorithms to detect users which repeatedly appear to contribute biased political content— however, they should. It would be fairly easy to implement. Just look at users (or IPs) that repeatedly edit political/political candidate articles, then use simple Natural Language Processing artificial intelligence to detect the tone and bias of such edits. Label the offenders, have them confirmed by actual humans, and if confirmed, block their ability to edit political articles.

I would not be surprised if 90% of all edits to candidates during active political elections are performed by lobbying groups, political action committees, and rival candidates. While I'm a social libertarian who is (usually) staunchly against government intervention and involvement, especially in regards to free speech, I would not be opposed to barring lobbying groups, political parties (and anyone working under the command of one), political candidates and comercial interests from performing edits on public sources of information, like Wikipedia, under penalty of perjury carrying a criminal penalty. 2602:61:7C0C:BF00:B006:4A00:BCEB:89EB (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Davidmsterns Have you considered that bad people can still say intelligent things? That just because someone committed atrocities, not every word out of their mouth had to have been in furtherance or support of said atrocities? Göring's quote in this case had nothing to do with genocide, it had to do with how the Nazi political propaganda machine was able to drum up support for the war and the war machine, while suppressing any who was opposed to war.

Interestingly, I remember many democrats/liberals at the time saying the same thing, that the Global War on Terror was designed to create an enemy, spread fear throughout the population, and garner support for unjust war in the Middle East (without explicitly quoting Göring— however, using the quote makes the statement all that more powerful). The fact that Masters, a republican, was against the Invasion of Iraq, on grounds that ultimately proved to be correct, is the point that should be taken from this article.

Or, have you considered that someone may quote a person who represented an historically evil movement, to draw parallels between something that is occurring presently and the movement in question? Have you never heard someone say the phrase, "what is this, Nazi Germany?", in reference to a policy or action they believe to be oppressive and fascist? A peraon does not make such a statement in support of the actions of the Nazis, but rather, the opposite.

Along those lines, how many people drew parallels between Trump's statements and actions, and Hitler and his rise to power? Were those individuals in support of Nazi agenda, or were they in fact decrying it? I believe the latter. 2602:61:7C0C:BF00:B006:4A00:BCEB:89EB (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

You might have a point if it weren't for the fact that Blake Masters has been endorsed by Andrew Anglin (a Nazi) and is friends with GAB CEO Andrew Torba (also a Nazi) who paid a bunch of money to GAB (a site full of Nazis) so that every new person who signed up (most of whom are Nazis) would automatically follow Blake Masters on GAB (again, a site full of Nazis run by a Nazi).

I was essentially making the "truth has a well known liberal bias" thing (i.e. an accurate portrayal of Masters will make him look bad because he is a bad person who does and says bad things).

My comment was a direct response to the comment I replied to. That the article contained a bunch of bad things he did and said and arguing that they weren't newsworthy. My point is that since he has so many Nazi connections and the support of so many Nazis and gives money to Nazis to promote himself on a Nazi site, a quote from Masters explicitly supporting a famous Nazi is newsworthy and should be in his article since it's important information for voters and not just demonizing him with some random quote from high school which is what the original comment implied. Davidmsterns (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

2024 House Campaign alleged BLP and NPOV violation removal

Pinging Fred Zepelin & BBQboffin

See edit...

• "During his campaign, Masters promoted writings by Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and white supremacist Sam Francis, and touted his endorsement of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory."

1. Masters received considerable attention during the 2022 campaign for his views on abortion and his flirtations with “the great replacement,” a racist conspiracy theory promoted by white nationalists that contends elites — and in some cases Jews and Democrats — plan to use nonwhite immigrants to radically change the country’s demographics. Politico

2. PHOENIX (AP) — An interviewer asked Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters to pick a “subversive thinker” whom people should know more about. Masters gave it some thought and came up with a risky response for someone running for elected office. He picked the Unabomber...As for the Unabomber, Masters said he doesn’t endorse all of Kaczynski’s views, but “there’s a lot of insight there.” Kaczynski’s 35,000-word manifesto, which blames technological progress for societal ills, has found a loyal following." AP NEWS

3. He has said a lot of things that are ill-advised and a problem for him. So I don’t see a huge opportunity at this point in the race. He started to build a real team, but it’s kind of too little, too late.” Among Masters’s remarks that have drawn scrutiny: floating the idea of privatizing Social Security during a late-June primary debate; his hard-line views on abortion (which he has attempted to walk back); saying that Ted Kaczynski’s writings provided “a lot of insight there that is correct” (though he was quick to denounce Kaczynski’s terrorist actions); and his comment that the U.S.’s military leadership is “totally incompetent.” The Hill

4. What Mr. Masters calls an “obvious truth” is what experts in extremism describe as a sanitized version of the “great replacement,” a once-fringe, racist conspiracy theory that claims that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to replace white Americans with immigrants to weaken the influence of white culture. The idea has been linked to the massacre at a Buffalo supermarket in May, the El Paso Walmart shooting in 2019 and the killings at a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018. NYT

Currently there is no CTOP warning for BRD here. Since he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and this is reliably sourced, in the spirit of WP:Preserve I am re-adding a version of this to the political views and statements section (more or less), with the additional cited references. A few things to consider. I think it may be too ambiguous to say he "promoted" the writings of the Unabomber, and BBQ has already altered the part about Sam Francis without removing it entirely. Citations also seem to confirm the bit about GRCT (Politico was 2023 - the rest are from 2022). Perhaps my edit will resolve any issues.

Cheers. DN (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the amount of coverage, which you've detailed above, it's safe to say that Masters' controversial views are the most notable thing about him. I don't see how that doesn't get included in the lead. It's literally what he's notable for, as he hasn't won an election yet. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Darknipples I used "promoted" because it seemed more neutral than "praised" the writings of Ted Kaczynski, which is the word the source used. I'm happy to change it to "praised" if you feel it's better to stick to the source text. Either way, he did both. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Controversy is not as important as coverage. As long as it is reflected and confirmed by a prevalence reliable sources, I have no issue with restoring it. If anything, I think this is more between you and BBQboffin since I was the one that restored most of your edit in some form. They did seem to keep the part about Sam Francis.

Cheers. DN (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm okay with either word being used. The only thing I'm not okay with it is attempted whitewashing of topics and events that the subject most known for. Thank you for weighing in, you're a respected voice, in my book. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Masters was asked a one-time "gotcha" question by a reporter, and his candid and naïve answer (Ted Kaczynski) got picked up by AP News. It was used in an opposition campaign ad and reported by the Hill. All's fair in love and war, but I have a problem with how we parlay this to say in Wikivoice that Masters “promoted” or “praised” writings by Unabomber Ted Kaczynski “during the campaign”, without giving any of that context, to imply that his regular stump speech advocates domestic terrorism (as that is what Kaczynski is best known for). There are similar NPOV, SYNTH, and BLP issues with the rest of the sentence newly added to the lede by @Fred Zepelin.

In-article we report a source saying “Masters denies that he promotes X” but in the lede, unsourced, we say he “touted and endorsed X” but give no mention of the denial. If we’re going to call this, implicitly, as a “prominent controversy” per WP:LEDE, we should either mention both sides there, or say the X controversy is weighty enough to be ledeworthy, per my edit. True for all values of X, but here X=GRCT. BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@BBQboffin leads often preclude sources/citations per MOS. DN (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yahoo news: "He praised some positions held by Ted Kaczynski,"

AP News: "As for the Unabomber, Masters said he doesn’t endorse all of Kaczynski’s views, but “there’s a lot of insight there.”" Reasonable to say that's praise/endorsement/pick your synonym.

LA Times: "He called Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson a “pedophile apologist,” praised Unabomber Ted Kaczynski as a subversive thinker deserving of wider notice,"

The right-wing Washington Examiner: "Masters has praised major parts of the manifesto, saying that “everybody should read” it and that Kaczynski is “a subversive thinker who is underrated”"

That's in addition to the sources (WSJ, VF, etc.) that are already in this article. On the other hand, we have a politician that said... what, exactly? Even if there was a source that says "Masters denies that he promotes X", as you claim (I didn't see that anywhere), that's still the subject talking about themselves. That's a primary source. We use reliable secondary sources here. As for your "gotcha question" comment, do you have any reliable sources to support that assertion? No, you do not. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The "politician" is the biographical subject himself, so what he says about himself is of importance. The page says "Masters denies that he promotes the great replacement theory" which is a paraphrase of the NYT source that says: Mr. Masters, who declined to be interviewed, disputes that he has promoted the great replacement theory. but only the accusation is presented in the lede, not the rebuttal.

The "gotcha" question was what DarkNipples referenced above[1]; any "subversive thinker" Masters named was going to be used by political opponents to highlight the most pejorative aspects of the thinker's life or writings, as was done. We as Wikipedians should write more responsibly and dispassionately. And when someone attempts that, not to make repeated accusations of "whitewashing" towards that editor; it is insulting. BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Every argument in this comment above is pure opinion. None of it is based in sourcing. The text in the article is based on reliable secondary sources. I remain convinced that BBQboffin's sole goal here is to be apologist for a figure who has well-documented white supremacist leanings. I have no problem citing the myriad of reliable secondary sources currently in the article. I do have a problem with white-supremacist-apologists who show up at these articles periodically to attempt to market their favorite cause in a more positive way. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's all try to AGF...If both of you can't seem to find consensus, perhaps BLPN or NPOVN is the way to go. I do not think I alone should try to mediate this. DN (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Some uninvolved perspective might be for the best. DN (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'll admit I agree because I think most reasonable editors aren't going to be on the side of "let's minimize the associations with far-right people" that the subject of this bio has. It's fairly obvious to me that the only reason the whitewashing has gotten this far is that no one cares (yet) about Blake Masters. More light on the article is a good thing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If more light on the article is a good thing, then kindly self-revert and add back the tag I added that is designed to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight which is what is needed here. @Fred Zepelin, these ongoing personal accusations towards me (whitewashing, white-supremacist-apologist) look to me as a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please stop. BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is coming off like a WP:TEXTWALL. What's the core issue here? Can someone summarize it impartially? Perhaps an RFC would be a good idea. I am surprised to see this sentence in the lede "During his campaign, Masters promoted writings by Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and white supremacist Sam Francis, and touted his endorsement of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory" not because of its content, but because we don't typically include campaign details in article ledes. Fred Zepelin, I would also note that accusing other editors of being "white-supremacist-apologists" is both uncivil and an ineffective strategy. Marquardtika (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not surprised in the least to see it in the lead, because 90% of this subject's notability in reliable sources comes from his own far-right positions, words, and how those far-right positions imploded his campaign. It's the majority of the article. Why would it, therefore, not be in the lead? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please keep WP:RFCBEFORE in mind. There is still ongoing discussion and neither editor has taken this to NPOVN or BLPN yet. If the personal attacks continue I suggest WP:DR. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There's actually very little about his political positions in the lede. The article has sections on abortion, gun violence, immigration, the 2020 election, etc. The lede should summarize the body, including a summary of his political views. And a random comment about the Unabomber doesn't achieve that. It's not good encyclopedic writing. Marquardtika (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the lede seems fairly thin, however his stances on abortion, gun violence, immigration, the 2020 election are all fairly typical for a republican candidate these days. His comments about the Unabomber are more unique to him, and something he may be well-known for, which readers would then expect to see. DN (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article body. What we put there doesn't have anything to do with what anyone thinks are typical stances for a Republican. It has to do with the content in the body. Marquardtika (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that the lead shouldn't summarize the body, only that we should consider the prevalent aspects that reliable sources cover. In other words, he is likely not well known (or covered by RS) for his conservative stances on gun control, for example, in comparison to his Unabomber comments. DN (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory

I'd like to put this to bed. Yes, Blake Masters, in a single source, "disputes" that he promotes the Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory. And then, in that same source, he's quoted, almost word-for-word with the tenets of the theory itself, promoting the conspiracy theory when he says Democrats are trying to replace white voters with immigrants. And in every other source that mentions his views on immigration, he's quoted promoting the GRCT. Wikipedia policy is clear - we go with what the reliable secondary sources are saying, not a self-serving statement where the politician attempts to distance himself from the very conspiracy theory that he himself has promoted over and over again. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know how I misread this in the first place, because it's even more of a contradiction when you read his statement. He disputes that he promotes the theory because he says he doesn't need a "theory" to see that "Democrats see illegal immigrants as future voters" - which is an exact summary of the GRCT. I adjusted the text in that section. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Endorsement sourced to SLPC

Another editor removed the line "In October 2022, Masters was endorsed by Dave Smith, a comedian and prominent figure within the American Libertarian Party" and the source (SLPC). I'd like to know the rationale behind this removal. To me, it appears to be straight-up whitewashing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

To me, repeated accusations of "whitewashing" are straight-up personal attacks, violating WP:CIVIL; please stop.

As I explained in my edit summary, our 2022 Arizona Senate election page is the appropriate spot for this endorsement, and I see that it is already listed there.

A better question is: Why should the endorsement of a notable (but not famous) libertarian comedian be mentioned, when there are 50 other election endorsements from household names like Mike Pence, Chuck Norris, and Tulsi Gabbard that we don't mention in the biography?

The page on Master's opponent, Mark Kelly does not mention any campaign endorsements, although you can see from the election page that he has dozens of them, and that's where they belong. I'll remove the content again, and remind you that the WP:ONUS is on you to make your case for inclusion (verifiability is not in doubt) and get consensus here that your addition improves the biography. BBQboffin (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

A comedian endorsed him? ... Who cares? Why should we mention that? Endwise (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)