Talk:Doug Mastriano/Archives/2022/October

Consensus Request Confederate controversy uniform photo

No progress was made on article improvement. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As far as not coming to consensus before including full photo. as an editor i am allowed presume consensus initially, so I replaced the edited photo with the original. and *A* standard for consensus on wikipedia is silence, so to be clear that the current state of the photo, and the photos caption does not have consensus, i will not remain silent, and i will continue to revert misleading edits. I will become silent when the issue is resolved in these comments with third parties. Wikipedia:Silence and consensus The photo provided with controversy section has been edited to not include information relevant to the topic of the page, and to mislead readers. Mastriano, at what is essentially a museum affiliated with the army war college in Carlisle, wore a historical uniform among others wearing historical uniforms; THIS IS UNDENIABLE FACT, sourced from the reliable news Reuters. the controversy is now relevant because the uniform he alone wore is now considered offensive, and "de facto" banned by the army. it is incumbent upon us as unbiased editors that the whole story be conveyed to the readers, to do otherwise would violate wikipedia's neutral point of view by not "representing as far as possible all significant positions" by cropping out the photo we remove the context of the faculty dressing up. we also remove information presented by Reuters; Reuters did not perform a freedom of information act on a segment of a photo, but the whole photo. by cropping the photo we compromise the neutrality point of view of the article. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I believe we need to include the full unedited picture, for the readers. and additionally a caption that reads something along the lines of, "Mastriano (Left) is pictured wearing a Confederate uniform in an Army War College faculty photo taken on April 9, 2014. The picture was taken outside of the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center." The picture provides the entire document reported on and leaked by Reuters for readers to view and the caption answers relevant info on the document. additionally is does not violate any caption policies like someone incorrectly stated earlier. who - mastriano what - wearing a historic confederate uniform where - u.s. army heritage and education center when - April 9, 2014 why - a faculty photo at a museum the alternative photo and caption can what i only assume deliberately hides the context of the faculty, and the reason why the photo was taken. I am a good faith actor. i have occasionally contributed information to this page for the past 9 months, I am willing to compromise to reach consensus. i respect consensus when it exists. i have already changed the caption based on your critique. a complaint earlier about the picture being to small, when the whole photo is present, is valid so i would suggest just making it bigger. I would also suggest a compromise where we have 2 photos, one where the whole picture is present, and another cropped showing mastriano up close. again i will reiterate, i violated no policies by changing the picture, and as I CONTINUE to defend the edits from misleading information, i will be awaiting consensus decision. BreezewoodPA (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC) You're obviously edit warring. You violated a policy. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC) i am allowed to fix damaging edits BreezewoodPA (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC) That reminds me: you are also falsely claiming that good-faith edits are vandalism. You're also an SPA, who seems to be out to whitewash the subject's reputation--that's the only thing you're doing. So that you would claim you "know" Wikipedia policy is kind of rich, especially if you manage to produce hogwash such as "The problem is this Wikipedia article sites the analysis on news events, not the actual reporting", whatever that may mean. Perhaps it's a good idea to stop you from directly editing this article. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC) That is total BS before May and before Mastriano was nominated for gov. There was a general consensus on this article to have the far right and adjective on specific uses of this article. The justification for the change the sources. And at the time there were questionable sources and questionable citations. I completely stand by my comments at the time. If an article reports that mastriano says "..." then the article calls "..." "far right ", the article calling it something is editorialization by the author, that is UNDENIABLE FACT. and I was not going to allow Media Matters as the source you used to create a narrative around his reputation. Additionally since when is his reputation what is written about on Wikipedia. We right the FACTS that can be sourced, we do not say James buchanan was the worst president of all time, we do not write Mohammed ali was the greatest boxer of all time. Article should be reputation neutral. So if you're going to accuse me of being white washing his reputation, than absolutely guilty as charged. BreezewoodPA (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Also since you got me banned from editing ill let you know My alts are just waiting ;) BreezewoodPA (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for admitting to using sock puppet accounts. I suspected that this account was a sock master based on edits made by similar accounts to this and other articles. This is actually a bannable offense so I think with this confession this should be a pretty open and shut case. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BreezewoodPA For anyone that would like to add additional accounts or context. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC) I have never used alts before, BUT I GUARANTEE I WILL IN THE FUTURE. i you weren't being so ignorant and accusing me of being a SPA account and coming with BS reasons why my contributions were wrong, and actually addressing the issues i brought up. @Hyderabad22 you can accuse me all you want, I ahead was already banned yesterday, that why i made that promise to come back;). that being said. has any body here actually gone to the extant to understand my complaints other than what appears to be. i can tell you havent cause your already accused me of being mouthbreathers like engineer005. my rhetoric and contributions are clearly different than these other accounts.I CHALLENGE ANYBODY TO FIND RHETORIC SIMILARITIES BETWEEN BREEZEWOODPA AND ANY OTHER ACCOUNT. do that before you make you accusations @Hyderabad22 So yesterday i was accused of: edit warring, I reverted changes that i was able to make, and justly fixed any malicious edits. i know my edits were acceptable, because they are in part being used as we speak and no one has a problem, and no one wants to address their problem in this talk. i was outrageously accused of vandalism by @Drmies because i defended the the proposition that was the common consensus until MAY that 'far-right' is not Mastrianos defining adjective or attribute that it deserves to be the second adjective on his page, and that the hyperlink is outright misleading. i know this is a reasonable position because Mastianos page did not feature 'far-right' in the first sentence until may, so did his positions change in may or did the editors?, no one has yet to anwser that question. so is it bad faith to argue there is a difference between calling someone a label, and the person actually being that label is it bad faith to argue that we shouldnt hyperlink an article on " Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism" considering the person in the article is proven to not be a Fascist, Nazi, and Falangist i was also accused of being a spa, considering ive made dozen and dozens of contributions too wvu football, the steelers, heinze ketchup ad practices and havnt made an edit on this page since July, i guess im A single issue account if you think i deserved to be banned for these 2 offenses ^^^^^ then chances are you are the one operating in bad faith, see you in the near future all, chances are i will under a different name though =) BreezewoodPA (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC) You've admitted to having sock puppets and being willing to use them, there are multiple SPI's associated with this article around the term "far-right" that have ended in a ban. It's fairly obvious your other accounts were banned and now this main and the other main you use should be banned with SPI. Hopefully checkuser can also get any other accounts you've made. I think this should be a pretty open and shut case. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC) again you dont address any of the issues raised in my contributions. no wander there is a consensus around the far right issue. you ban every person who objects with the wording you dont even address the complaints they raise. yesterday i even corrected someone who tried to remove the far right statement. i never admitted to using alts in the past, i only promised to have them in the future. checkuser wont find any considering they dont exist yet. BreezewoodPA (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC) You stated "My alts are just waiting", you have in fact admitted to having alts for the purpose of a ban evasion. You likely deserve a ban for continued vandalism, sock puppetry and ban evasion. There is no consensus from other accounts when those other accounts are all just your socks stating that the term "far-right hyperlinked" in the lead is inappropriate. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Dude. You're not banned. You haven't made dozens of articles to other articles or on other topics. You keep thinking that this is about what's correct or not--here's the thing, as an administrator, I really don't care, unless it's something blatantly wrong. The point is that you are edit warring, and that's why you ended up on the edit warring board. Your edits are confined, almost exclusively, to that article, which is why I asked for a partial block rather than a full block--you're welcome. All this ranting and yelling, it's just going to lead to an expansion of that block--maybe to this talk page, maybe just a site-wide block. Threatening sock puppetry, that's just dumb. You may recall what Sam Johnson said to Harriet. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC) I'm fairly certain this is more than a threat of sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BreezewoodPA I've opened an investigation and linked to accounts I believe are likely puppets of this sock main. Please feel free to contribute or help with the investigation. Based on the content these accounts like to edit war over (term far-right) I'm fairly convinced this user has multiple accounts they use to evade bans. ~~~ Hyderabad22 (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Photo

@GeorgeBailey has been adding a photo of Mastriano in military uniform to the infobox. I've reverted and taken to talk page. It gives a false impression that Mastriano is active military when he is not. He is a civilian and a candidate for office. If no other photo exists, then having him in uniform would be fine, but civilian photos of him exist. It's inappropriate to include otherwise. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pennsylvania2Which photo is better? or  ? One is a blurry, low-quality image clipped from a youtube video, and the other is an official portrait of Mastriano from a couple of years ago. You say that putting an old military portrait gives a "false impression" that Mastriano is currently in the military, but that's not really the case. Anybody who reads this article will read the first sentence of this article and read "retired military officer". You don't lose the right to have your military portrait as a representation of you once you leave the military. Jimmy Carter's Wikipedia photo is his presidential portrait, even though there are "civilian photos" of him post-presidency. Other examples of veterans who are ran for office and have their military portrait in the infobox is Daniel Gade (2020 United States Senate election in Virginia), Michael Franken (2022 United States Senate election in Iowa), and Don Bolduc (2022 United States Senate election in New Hampshire). You should reconsider. GeorgeBailey ([[User talk:GeorgeBailey|talk) 19:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A lead photo of him in a military uniform five years ago when he is no longer in the military violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. It is fine in the section about his military career. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As for the other articles, if we have freely licensed photos of those people out of uniform, then the lead images of those articles should be changed as well. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Which part of NPOV does an official portrait violate? GeorgeBailey (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It is non-neutral because it portrays him as a military service member five years after he retired when he is now a politician and we have a recent photo of him campaigning. He is far more notable as a politician than as a soldier, and if he never ran for office, it is highly unlikely that we would have a Wikipedia biography of him. If a person is notable as a soldier, it is appropriate to show them in uniform in the lead. Consider John Glenn, initially famous as an astronaut but who later served 25 years in the US Senate. His lead image is of him as a senator, not in a space suit. Consider Tammy Duckworth who is a combat veteran, double amputee and US Senator. Her lead photo shows her as a senator, rather than in uniform as a helicopter pilot. Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Who wrote this?

Why isn't the author named? How do we know this is true, not exaggerated or just plan slander? Jooniper13 (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You can see all of the people who have edited the page in the History section, and you can verify each statement by clicking on the reference at the end. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Governor Mastriano page prep

I think it’s very important (especially knowing how long it takes to get edits approved here) that we prep for when/if Senator Mastriano becomes Governor Mastriano. Please comment below on next steps. Keep the political commentary to yourself Richinstead (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no "prep" to be done. If he's elected, we'll put that in when it happens. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Richinstead (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Article misrepresented his abortion position

Prior to 24 Oct 2002, the article incorrectly stated "He supports outlawing abortion with no exceptions." The article's sources on his abortion position are

• https://www.inquirer.com/politics/doug-mastriano-governor-christian-nationalism-qanon-20220504.html
• https://whyy.org/articles/doug-mastriano-abortion-restrictions-pa-governor-race/

Neither of these sources say that he supports outlawing abortion with no exceptions. Both sources say something very different: that he supports heartbeat bills.

Heartbeat bills, by definition, are abortion bans which contain an exception that permits abortion prior to the detection of a fetal heartbeat. Many abortions take place prior to this stage of development, so it would be correct to describe this as a "wide" exception.

On 24 Oct I corrected the misrepresentation. On 26 Oct, Pennsylvania2 restored the misrepresentation, with the comment "Not what source says".

Yes, in fact, both of the cited sources do say that he supports heartbeat bills. Please read them carefully. Novel compound (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Added proper citations that represent his stated views on abortion including quotes from him on the issue. Hyderabad22 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)