Talk:John Fetterman

Faculae claims

Why are they considered to be false claims when the same is not said about Hillary’s claims of fraud in 2016 or Stacey Abrams OPINION that the election was stolen from them. Unproven should be the claim not false which relies on facts not opinions. 107.116.83.15 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Mueller report, released in 2019, showed that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion". This is official documentation, showing fraud objectively did occur in 2016.

No such evidence exists to claim that there was widespread fraud in 2020 or 2022. 213.105.99.162 (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the Mueller report? That's not at all what it said. 69.244.226.209 (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't read the report. "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion," Mueller wrote in the 448-page document, which lays out new details about a Kremlin-backed plot that compromised Democrats’ computer networks and targeted state and local election offices." – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

False claims is the title Jogershok (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

In lead change "who is the junior United States senator from Pennsylvania since 2023." to "serving as the junior United States senator from Pennsylvania since 2023." and change "A member of the Democratic Party, he has also served as the 34th lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania from 2019 to 2023." to "A member of the Democratic Party, he also served as the 34th lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania from 2019 to 2023". Changes would be for the sake of grammar and consistency with the leads of other Senators. Planetberaure (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Scoutguy138 (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Senate struggles in last paragraph of introduction

Fetterman's struggles with mental health (checking in to the hospital for clinical depression), physical health (the major stroke he had), and audio processing issues (having to get a closed captioning device installed to his Senate desk) are public and well-documented. I think that given that this is what he's receiving much media attention for, it's worth adding to the introduction. See the following as only one example of this media attention. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/us/politics/john-fetterman-health.html Jgtrevor (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE for the lead. what he's receiving much attention for is WP:RECENTISM. As a BLP, we should not be including speculation, like the edit that I reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Should Fetterman Be Described as a Progressive?

The intro specifically says that he is commonly referred to as a progressive but he has rejected this term in multiple interviews recently.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/-not-progressive-fetterman-breaks-left-israel-immigration-rcna129747

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/us/politics/john-fetterman-progressive-israel.html 68.46.25.44 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the solution is to add a section called "Break from Progressivism" or something like that. He definitely identified as progressive, but has clearly changed his stance. --Sametinkles (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Editorial Comments on Senators Health

This article makes the allegation that right wing conspiracy theorists made comments that the Senator was replaced with a body double. I am failing to understand how the commentary that people have on someone's health, or presence or absence, has anything to do with the actual state of the Senator's health.

Someone is reverting this, so I'd like to get a topic going as to why the commentary of political groups about strange propositions has to do with the Senator's health.

I propose that the sentence in the "Health Section" which is "After Fetterman's discharge, right-wing conspiracy theorists spread a false theory that Fetterman had been replaced by a body double." be removed. It could be moved to a different section. This is not a factual, dispositive statement about his health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Steve.A.Dore.4, that someone was me; don't be bashful about pinging an editor you are disagreeing with. No, this article does not "make the allegation"--that allegation is made in a number of highly reliable secondary sources. It seems you are trying to bolster your case by using highly circumlocutious language; I suggest you try to be concise and direct. For instance, there is no "commentary of political groups about strange propositions", but there was a political group (loosely defined) proposing a very strange thing, as is verified by these reliable sources. And what do you mean with "dispositive statement"? Drmies (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  I would agree the sentence should be removed, and perhaps moved to the article(s) of whoever (individual, group) is making the false body-double allegation. Yes, this nonsense made the news cycle and yes, it is well-sourced, and yes, it's fun to laugh at. But I don't see how adding it improves Fetterman's biography. In WP:TENYEARS are we really going to include this? BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Drmies,

  I'm sorry to hear you don't like the way I phrased it. There was no attempt to employ language to increase the persuasiveness of the point.

  It seems to me that it should be removed, or added to a different section. It is an editorial statement that doesn't contribute to our understanding about his health.

  I'm also sorry to hear that your dissapointed that I didn't ping you. It seems like we have a going dialogue on this subject, so we can get to the bottom of this issue based on the consensus related approach that is one of Wikipedia's core tenants.

  Steve Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think this sentence undermines the credibility of wikipedia, and is an assault on this article and its legitimacy. This sentence is clearly designed to persuade. It is irrelevant and should be removed. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)