Talk:Graham Platner

Photo change

I think the photo currently used in his infobox could be changed to this. I believe this change would show more than just his face. If not this photo, we could find another. Clayton Odom Jr. (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

No, far too blurry to use in the infobox when there's already a decent picture there. It's ok further down in the body of the article, but still not ideal, and should probably be replaced by a similar one. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It would be nice if the Platner campaign would upload a free-use image. I've emailed them twice about this but haven't received a reply. Generalrelative (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Create a controversies section?

the amount of controversies surrounding graham is so big that it, in my opinion, warrants a separate section at this point Gjivhj (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

yes that makes sense. the page probably should also be semi-protected again for a little bit because of vandalism Catboy69 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NOCRIT, controversy sections and criticism sections are disfavored on Wikipedia. ~2026-24307-27 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Generally disfavored, doesn't mean we can't use it at all. Some people have controversies sections in their articles, the rules aren't set in stone Gjivhj (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

We try to avoid dedicated controversy sections whenever possible. The various allegations of impropriety by Mr. Platner can be subdivided by type, especially the allegations of mistreatment of women. I would propose an “Allegations of abuse” section (could be worded differently if we like) and that the totenkopf tattoo and Reddit posts can be covered under the campaign and personal life sections. See WP: Criticism for more info. Firefox0807 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Redundancy in Sexual assault accusation section

The section reads "The accuser, Jenny Racicot, said she did not previously publicize the incident because she did not want to be publicly known as a victim of rape, and said she felt torn about making the allegations because she agrees with Platner's political beliefs, but said she felt compelled to come forward due to the previous allegations of relationship misconduct made against Platner the month before. She also shared with Politico a set of Facebook messages from 2023 where she told a third party about the incident. Platner denied the accusation, calling it a political attack to derail his campaign. Racicot denied that she was motivated by politics, claiming that she agrees with Platner's political positions and that "we need somebody with those political stances"."

I understand redundancies are acceptable at times, but almost the same thing twice in one paragraph? I see both sides of it, but not sure. Depechemodeonfife (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Done. Good catch.

StalkerFishy (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this one’s actually necessary. These are both dependent clauses supporting two different arguments which would lose important context were one or both clauses to be deleted. StalkerFishy’s edit also deletes the entirety of the sentence that Ms. Racicot denies that her coming forward was politically motivated, which is an important bit of information. As such, I will revert with much love and appreciation for both of you. Firefox0807 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The section now includes all important information sans redundancy. Firefox0807 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2026

Change "On July 6, 2026, exactly one week before the deadline for candidates to withdraw from the 2026 U.S. Senate race in Maine,[80][81] a woman Platner had previously dated accused him of raping her while he was drunk nearly five years prior.[82][83]" to "On July 6, 2026, 7 days before the deadline for candidates to withdraw from the 2026 U.S. Senate race in Maine,[80][81] Politico published an account by a woman Platner had previously dated accusing him of raping her while he was drunk in late 2021.[82][83]"

This removes the implication that she waited up until the last minute to make the accusation, and brings it more in line with the reality of it being Politico who made the decision on the date to publish, it also reduces the fuzziness of "nearly 5 years". In citation 82, it specifically states that she "detailed the alleged incident to POLITICO in three interviews over the past two weeks." AmyCupcake (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Westindiaman (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Creation of campaign suspension section?

Might be best to separate campaign suspension info into its own heading as more information comes out. HandwovenGarden (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The Washington Post has shared newer nuggets of info; Platner supposedly held a call with his campaign staff this afternoon regarding campaign suspension. HandwovenGarden (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding withdrawal status vs. Maine Senate race page

The page for the 2026 Maine Senate race already has the Democratic nominee listed as “TBD”; I was under the impression that he had already technically withdrawn and that continuing to list him as the nominee was either redundant or simply incorrect. On this page, however, it is stated that he is still the nominee because his withdrawal has not been “finalized”. Could I get some clarification as to if he really has “withdrawn” already, or is waiting for a new nominee? Nextrava (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I will add stuff to make it clear. Guz13 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

"Oyster Farmer"

Can we drop the RAH RAH RAH BLUE COLLAR now? He made $5,000 in a year selling oysters to a restaurant owned by his mother. Not sure why that's even in the very first sentence. ~2026-39005-81 (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources describe him as an oyster farmer. If you disagree you need to take that up with the sources themselves and get them to issue corrections, or show us that most sources do not describe him that way. You are certainly free to disagree with the sources. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Supposed antisemitism of Cornacchia and Peters not properly supported, subjective judgment appropriated unquestioned by Wikipedia

"Platner has drawn criticism for online activity and media appearances during the campaign. In February 2026, he briefly shared a tweet by antisemitic alt-right commentator Stew Peters before deleting it, saying he had not realized Peters was the original source. On a podcast hosted by antisemitic conspiracy theorist Nate Cornacchia, Platner said he was a "longtime fan" of the show."

Wiki voice can't just describe those people as antisemitic without a reliable source objectively finding them such. At this point both attributions of antisemitism were by random and/or unknown people, in one case AP describing Nate Cornacchia as "a retired Green Beret who has been accused of antisemitism", no attribution of this, no mention of Peters at all. In the other case Matthew Kassel, a journalist from the Jewish Insider, just calling him and Peters that.

I do not actually doubt that it's correct, but Wikipedia can't just claim it like that.

-- ~2026-39147-53 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Stew Peters is described as antisemitic already, so I don't think that one is a problem. The Cornacchia one I'm less sure of but do think you have a point. Interested to hear other editors' takes.

StalkerFishy (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Former political candidate"

@David O. Johnson:

Calling Platner a "former political candidate" means he will no longer run for any office. Not just Maine's Senate seat. You're not calling him a "former Maine 2026 U.S. Senate candidate". You're calling him a former candidate, which applies to his entire political career. If he runs for anything else ever again, which he has not closed the door on, he is still a political candidate. You have not provided any citations of him retiring from running for office. Therefore, it is not accurate to call him a "former political candidate". Bluerules (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This seems to me to fail WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

What type of wording would you suggest? Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If he actually does run for something again, the article can be changed. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Former" implies he won't run again, which we don't know. I doubt he will, but that's CRYSTAL. We only know that he's not running in this 2026 race again. What wording would I suggest? Either leave it out entirely or call him a "politician". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it necessarily true that “former political candidate” implies permanence? A descriptor of who a person is does not necessarily need to be one that must remain true forever. Nextrava (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I take "former" to mean "never again", yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you believe "Former (x)" carries a degree of permanence not held by other descriptive terms? Does "Platner is an American oyster farmer" imply he will, with absolute certainty, remain working as an oyster farmer for the rest of his life? Nextrava (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

For redundancy's sake, since the second sentence covers his role in the Maine senate elections, I think omitting the fact that he is a "political candidate" or a "former political candidate" works just well, although I disagree that calling him a "former political candidate" conveys that he will never run again. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)