| Revision as of 15:47, 4 August 2018 editThenightaway (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users51,977 edits →Donald Trump subsection is undue weight← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:36, 4 October 2024 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,917 edits →top |
| (116 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=McSally, Martha| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |
|
|class=C |
|
|
|military-work-group=yes |
|
|military-work-group=yes |
|
|
|military-priority=low |
|
|listas=McSally, Martha |
|
|
|
|politician-work-group=yes |
|
|
|politician-priority=low |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=C|subject=person}} |
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Biography=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|class=C|Biography=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=no|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|US=y|Aviation=y|Biography=y|Post-Cold-War=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|US=yes|Aviation=yes|Biography=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=low |American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Low|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=Low|RI=Yes|RI-importance=Low|USMIL=Yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=Low|RI=Yes|RI-importance=Low|USMIL=Yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women|class=C}} |
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Low|subject=person}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Support or Opposition not the same as Jurisdiction of an Issue == |
|
== WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 == |
|
|
Article reassessed and graded as stub. --] (]) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''"She opposes same-sex marriage and abortion in "nearly all cases", saying both issues should be decided at the state level."'' |
|
== Added some images == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This appears to say that because she believes these issues ought to be decided at the state level, therefore she opposes same sex marriage and abortion. |
|
Hey! I added some images. She's been in the news a lot recently as a congressional candidate and I thought it'd be cool if her picture in the infobox reflected her more recent activity. Totally cool if someone wants to shift the pictures around some. ] (]) 06:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, whether an issue should be decided by the local, state, or federal government is a separate question than whether one supports or opposes a particular issue or practice in principle. For example, one can support or oppose abortion, but believe that it is a not a federal or Constitutional question (as the United States Supreme Court recently held in overturning ''Roe v. Wade''); or one can support same-sex marriage but believe marriage law should be governed by the states (as it was throughout American history until the ''Obergefell'' decision in 2015). |
|
== A-10 Enforcing No-Fly Zone == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may be the case that she opposes both, supports both, or opposes one and supports the other. But these are separate questions from the question of jurisdiction (which level of government ought to have authority to decide these questions). |
|
The article as well as some of the source material asserts that McSally flew A-10s in support of enforcing the no-fly zone. I thought that enforcing the no-fly zone was left to aircraft such as the F-15 and F-16. While I imagine an A-10 could be useful in destroying SAM sites and such, I haven't found any specific information on how A-10s were employed enforcing the no-fly zone. I think it would be good to either provide supporting information or rewrite to clarify the A-10 role. ] (]) 18:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This should be clarified in my opinion. ] (]) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:4|one external link|4 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110704204516/http://www.now.org/nnt/spring-2002/mcsally.html to http://www.now.org/nnt/spring-2002/mcsally.html |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141219115648/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/special/primary/Canvass2012SpecialPrimary.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/special/primary/Canvass2012SpecialPrimary.pdf |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141219115648/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/special/primary/Canvass2012SpecialPrimary.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/special/primary/Canvass2012SpecialPrimary.pdf |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121224125542/http://www.azsos.gov:80/election/2012/General/Canvass2012GE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/General/Canvass2012GE.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141002100151/http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AZ/50936/139543/Web01/en/summary.html to http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AZ/50936/139543/Web01/en/summary.html |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Senate election == |
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to use the ] policy as a blunt instrument, but someone claims in the lead section that Ms. McSally is running for US Senate and provides only one citation, which is a broken link to the WaPo. A quick search for her name on Google News turned up nothing to corroborate that claim, so I'm removing the claim for now. ] (]) 15:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Military band funding== |
|
|
"While Army band funding has been the subject of congressional debate since the early 20th century, Arizona Republican Martha McSally spearheaded the most recent efforts to review military band structures in 2016. In her speech to the house, she criticized the half-billion dollars spent annually on military bands, stating that such funds would be better directed toward national defense. The approved amendment required the military to limit and review band activities." (https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/community/fort-huachuca-band-completes-final-mission-alumni-community-reflect-on/article_445feec0-7354-11e8-9457-570141ad1072.html) 18 Jun 2018 --] ] ] 04:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Donald Trump subsection is ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed the subsection on Donald Trump per ]. The article is on McSally and her political career, not Donald Trump. Trump is not an "issue", nor is he the reason why Arizonans voted for her. They ''did'' vote for her based on her positions on the issues: Abortion, Russia, Education, Environment and energy, Foreign and defense policy, Health care, Immigration, LGBT rights, Women's rights, and Taxes. The current president simply does not belong in that list. Case in point: have there been BLP articles on Democrats that have had Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton in the political positions sections? No. |
|
|
|
|
|
And so, this is where discussion on the removal should take place, not in edit summaries following a reversion. I could be making a ] move by saying this, but I will happily take a stand against anyone's choice to revert rather than taking part in discussion. Yes it was a bold ('B') move to put it into the article, however, my removal should be considered the 'R' (revert) in the ] cycle. Time to discuss in order to come up with a solution rather than further revert or start an edit war and become part of the problem. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion was started, but {{U|Snooganssnoogans}} is nowhere to be found on this page, rather, he chose to revert instead. This is becoming a habit with you, SS. Time to start an RfC later today if you can't find your way to this talk page ''and'' bring some salient, logical, and policy-based reasons why "Donald Trump" should remain listed as a subsection in the political positions/issues section of this article. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 14:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: This is covered by RS, making it ], as I explained in my edit summary. RS have extensively covered McSally in the context of her relationship to Trump. You'd know that if you'd check the sources rather than stalk me to this page (and a few other pages in recent days) only to spuriously revert me. ] (]) 14:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::It might belong in the article, it doesn't belong as a subsection in the section where it currently sits. Doesn't matter how many RS's you come up with, it's the section placement that's the issue, not the content. This was clearly spelled out in my edit summary after removing the content as well as the comments I placed above after removing the content. Yet, you just reverted anyway. That constitutes ], ] to make a ] and ]-pushing. You're not a victim, by the way - it would probably be best for you not to continue with that kind of crying-wolf self-narrative. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 15:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The sub-section is perfectly fine. Anyway, if that was your true concern (rather than just harassing me), you could have moved the content to a different section. ] (]) 15:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Or you could have, as a show of good faith. Nonetheless, putting the content in the appropriate sections is a good idea, and I have already done that. Thanks for the suggestion - that's how cooperative and collegial editing works. It's also why discussion is preferable over edit warring. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 15:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: '''"The sub-section is perfectly fine."''' I wrote two sentences, and they were not hard to decipher. ] (]) 15:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You reverted the changes... really? Why would you do that? I guess you've forced the need for an RfC. That will happen later today. It was avoidable, but you chose to go a different direction for the sake of ], ], and ] as well as ]. Yikes. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Because I think '''"the sub-section is perfectly fine"'''. I quoted and bolded it again for you. You know, in case, you didn't see it the other two times, because you're now running around Misplaced Pages claiming that I wanted to delete the sub-section. Views on Trump are perfectly fine in 'political positions' sections (if the content in question is reliably sourced), and are frequent in politicians' articles, including Democrats Joe Manchin's and Heidi Heitkamp's. If politicians have extensively sourced views on other figures, such as Hillary Clinton (as in Heidi Heitkamp's article) or Barack Obama (as in Dan Lipinski's article), then that content also goes into the 'pol positions' section. ] (]) 15:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
This appears to say that because she believes these issues ought to be decided at the state level, therefore she opposes same sex marriage and abortion.
However, whether an issue should be decided by the local, state, or federal government is a separate question than whether one supports or opposes a particular issue or practice in principle. For example, one can support or oppose abortion, but believe that it is a not a federal or Constitutional question (as the United States Supreme Court recently held in overturning Roe v. Wade); or one can support same-sex marriage but believe marriage law should be governed by the states (as it was throughout American history until the Obergefell decision in 2015).
It may be the case that she opposes both, supports both, or opposes one and supports the other. But these are separate questions from the question of jurisdiction (which level of government ought to have authority to decide these questions).
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
