Talk:Elise Stefanik/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elise Stefanik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216040321/http://www.nycfpac.com/nycfpac_endorses_elise_stefanik_for_congress to http://www.nycfpac.com/nycfpac_endorses_elise_stefanik_for_congress

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Healthcare Section

Hello -- I am a Representative of Congresswoman Stefanik's office and I wanted to discuss having the healthcare section fixed.

Right now, there is a very partisan, incorrect and uncited explanation of a bill she is cosponsoring regarding wellness programs.

This legislation does not eliminate the protections under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which clearly states: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee except - where.... health or genetic services are offered by the employer, including such services offered as part of a wellness program..."

What this legislation does is help provide employers the legal certainty they need to offer employee wellness plans, which would then help promote a healthy workforce and lower healthcare costs for businesses and families. Wellness programs are very popular among the public. Additionally, under this legislation, participation in wellness programs is voluntary and would remain voluntary -- no one would be coerced into giving genetic information.

Thank you for all input in how to address this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Edit to Personal Life section

I would like to request the mention of Stefanik's husband and his employer/occupation be updated.

I want to suggest that "On August 19, 2017, Stefanik married Matthew Manda from Lawrence, Kansas; he is the spokesman for the Independent Journal Review.[65]" be updated to "On August 19, 2017, Stefanik married Matthew Manda from Lawrence, Kansas; he is a communications and marketing vice president at Firehouse Strategies." http://firehousestrategies.com/our-team-3

I'd also like to suggest that this line be removed as it is no longer accurate: "He is also Director of Communications for the political consulting firm IMGE,[67] a firm retained by Stefanik's campaign.[68] Both Independent Journal Review and IMGE are divisions of Media Group of America.[69][70]"

2603:3003:3612:FC00:E9D4:458D:94E2:F790 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply 27-JUN-2018

 Implemented

Usually information is not deleted, instead, if it becomes outdated it is mentioned as such in the article. However, as this information about Mr. Manda's previous employment does not concern the main subject of the article, but rather, the subject's husband, the information can be removed without a tangible loss to the article's content. Additionally, the section's prenuptial details were also omitted.  spintendo  18:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Soon may not be youngest congresswoman elected

Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez won the democratic primary in NY's 14th congressional district at age 28 in a heavily leaning democrat district, so she'll likely be congresswoman elect in Novemeber and younger than Stefanik https://www.fastcompany.com/40590408/how-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-a-28-year-old-democratic-socialist-pulled-off-a-stunning-primary-upset?partner=feedburner&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29 Shushugah (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shushugah: - Yeah, and just as soon as Ocasio-Cortez is sworn in JANUARY, someone will be sure to make this update. Presuming Ocasio wins of course. But she's not there yet.

Billmckern (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Source-shopping and source-stretching in section on Schiff-Stefanik incident

The paragraph on the Stefanik-Schiff-Nunes incident concludes as follows:

"Other observers suggested that the incident was a planned stunt to portray Schiff as unfair, as Republicans had maintained that the impeachment inquiry process itself was unfair.[78][79][80]"

1. None of the cited sources suggest it was a pre-planned stunt (e.g. coordinated between Nunes and Stefanik)

2. There is no shortage of "other observers". The mere fact that both Stefanik and Schiff's sides have supporters in the media who have written opinion pieces supporting one or another view of the incident is not newsworthy, it is just background noise that holds for virtually any nationally reported political scuffle. Picking three pro-Schiff pieces that of course ignore the substantive issues Stefanik raised (i.e., the ostensibly symmetric new House rules voted in October are designed to lock in the results of prior testimony under asymmetrical rules severely favoring of Democrats) is source-shopping. Is there a Wikipedia policy specific to citing biased meta-coverage as a way of slanting the coverage of the underlying events in WP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.246.232 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Per cited Fox News article:

Politico congressional reporter Kyle Cheney accused Nunes of "intentionally" violating the House rule that allotted the minority the first 45 minutes of their questioning solely to Nunes and the GOP-selected counsel.

The Washington Post called the exchange a "transparently" "manufactured" moment and a "gender-centric stunt." The Post went on to accuse Stefanik of using moment "for political hay" and defended Schiff in the process.

"Schiff was acting firmly within the rules — and Nunes and Stefanik have to know that. It’s pretty apparent this was a stunt," Washington Post senior political reporter Aaron Brake wrote.

Frequent MSNBC guest Tom Nichols dismissed Stefanick as a "wingman for Nunes."

"The episode was entirely a stunt, and the incredulity on Nunes and Stefanik’s faces manufactured," Slate wrote.

Vox similarly called it a "bad-faith attack" on Schiff.

soibangla (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

i.e., one source (not the 3 you cited as ostensible support) says it was a "stunt", but none of them go so far as to say the scuffle was "planned". This is source-shopping and then stretching the shopped sources with a hyper-partisan POV (user who made edit has hundreds of edits exclusively on Trump-Russia and Trump-Ukraine articles). I am less interested in this specific edit; I can remove the word "planned" myself if need be, and didn't come to the Talk page to ask permission for that. My question was about WP policy on including meta-information about political controversies, since in every such situation there will be numerous "Other observers" who say whatever one wants from any POV on the matter, and detailing that is an invitation for tendentious material in every such article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.246.232 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

a hyper-partisan POV (user who made edit has hundreds of edits exclusively on Trump-Russia and Trump-Ukraine articles) HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You write the substantive issues Stefanik raised. The time to raise issues about the rules was when they were being debated for the House vote. After the vote, the rules were settled and everyone must abide by them. That the minority party continues to fume over the final outcome of the rules does not justify them throwing a tantrum/stunt in front of the cameras during a hearing to score cheap political points. And see. soibangla (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The WP article is about Stefanik, not your personal opinion of what Stefanik and Nunes should or shouldn't have done and when/how they ought to have done it. This section of the talk page, should you choose to contribute to it in an on-topic way, is about whether there are specific WP policies about the introduction of meta-content "discussing people discussing the controversy" (and from one POV only) when every political controversy gets endless such discussion and there is nothing significant about it. With that said, your source at the Twitter link is dishonest: there were massive and unprecedentedly partisan rules changes rammed through in 2019 as the first order of business once the Democrats gained a majority in the 2018 House elections. It's not clear to me that the concept of minority input even applies here, procedurally; the rules were mostly simply announced by Pelosi, and to the extent that any votes were involved (if any) they were straightforward party-line affairs in which the majority shut out the minority. The rules changes were from the Lawfare group and specifically directed to enable impeachment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.246.232 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

73.149.246.232, that's a good question. I am not aware of such a policy. And the problem you identify is one that, in my experience, crops up rather frequently on Wikipedia pages relating to American politics--except that you described it better than I ever have.

On a related note, I have deleted the sentence with the "planned stunt" language. The three cited sources don't support it, although the glaringly POV Yahoo! article includes a quotation from Rep. Val Demings asserting that Rep. Stefanik's role in the hearings is "a strategy from her side of the aisle". There is a Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/15/early-takeaways-marie-yovanovitchs-testimony/) that claims that it's "pretty apparent" that Rep. Stefanik's actions were a stunt, but no evidence is offered in support of the assertion. Until there is some evidence, I maintain that this sentence does not belong in the encyclopedia. SunCrow (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

By removing that sentence, you eliminated the balance of the paragraph, thereby introducing a POV push that wasn't there before. soibangla (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Including a sentence that summarizes only 3 pro-Schiff articles (effectively opinion pieces for purposes of this Stefanik article) is the definition of a POV push. Removing such a sentence is good. My point here is that meta-political sections (talking about what "some observers opined" on some controversy described briefly in a WP article) extremely often (1) serve as cover for POV-laundering by preselecting the sources that are quoted as neutral sounding unnamed "observers", and (2) are superfluous as there are observers available to take whatever POV one wants as soon as any issue is controversial and widely publicized. Hence this is an interesting matter for WP policy (AVOID OPINION RECYCLING, or somesuch). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

your personal opinion of what Stefanik and Nunes should or shouldn't have done is not present in this article. It is a cited fact they violated the rules.

Your personal opinions appear right here on the Talk page (e.g. that Stefanik et al should have raised their complaints earlier, and that every majority manipulates the rules). None of that is relevant to the editing of the article or to the WP policy question about meta-political summaries of Things Some Observers Say. They smack of SYNTH (among other problems). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet those comments are not in the article, while you have gone on at great length here with philosophical ruminations that are completely irrelevant to the matters at hand. soibangla (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

there were massive and unprecedentedly partisan rules changes rammed through in 2019 as the first order of business Every new majority does this

they were straightforward party-line affairs in which the majority shut out the minority Yep, it sure sucks to be in the minority. Pelosi was minority leader for eight years, she can tell you all about it. And Mitch can tell you how cool it is to single-handedly block a SCOTUS nominee. That's just the way it works.

(and from one POV only) Stefanik and many others assert she was gagged. The fact is she/Nunes violated the rules. Others suggested she and Nunes pulled a stunt. The paragraph is entirely fair. soibangla (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My mistake on the Fox News article, soibangla. No falsehood here; I didn't read it carefully enough. It does support the contention contained in the sentence by referring to the WP article and to a Slate article. However, the sentence does not summarize the Fox News source in a full, accurate, and neutral manner. I have made some edits. SunCrow (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe your new edit introduces a false equivalence of whataboutism between what Warren did and what Nunes/Stefanik did, which is irrelevant to this BLP. soibangla (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

"Stefanik managed Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan’s debate preparation as he ran for Vice President of the United States in the 2012 general election." Remove "as he ran" for Vice President of the United States in the 2012 general election. Better to state it as, "Stefanik managed the debate preparation for Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, during the 2012 Vice President debate." One does not "run" for the office of the Vice President of the United States Myxilpik (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done I reworded it to: "Stefanik managed Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan's debate preparation during the 2012 presidential election." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead should cover her role in Trump impeachment

The impeachment of Trump has long-term historical importance, and it is by far the thing she is most notable for (being the public face of his defenders in the House). That, along with her attempt to invalidate the 2020 election results, should both be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

How to present Stefanik's vote to challenge Pennsylvania electors

Hi! There's a way to present this that's accurate, but as written the lead was unintentionally inaccurate. Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes did not make the difference in President Biden's big victory of 306 votes (270 to win) and did not amount to an attempt to "overturn" the overall presidential election, just the Pennsylvania voters. Stefanik voted against certifying the Pennsylvania results, but that would not have prevented Biden from becoming president because of his overwhelming victory of winning so many states. Even contesting Arizona (11 votes) wouldn't make a difference. Yes, in fact Stefanik's vote was immediately after a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. I did not edit the Wikipedia entries of other Republicans in Congress who voted similarly but I think it's important to make the mathematics correct in these biographical entries on living persons, especially when it is politically contentious. Including the context of the vote after after a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol is important and is factual. Johnsmith1702 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! A paragraph describing Stefanik's participation in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results has been moved from the head to the body and has been shortened, and there's a question of whether it's better to describe Stefanik as attempting to "contest" the 2020 election results or "overturn" them. Could editors of this page weigh in? (1) Should Stefanik's involvement in the lawsuits challenging the results and her vote on January 6, 2021, to object to certifying the electors from Pennsylvania, be described in the head as well as in the body of the article? (2) Should her vote to object be contextualized by specifying that it immediately followed a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol? (3) Should her participation in the lawsuits and her vote be described as an effort to "overturn" or to "contest" the election results? Rider1819 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• My own votes: 1. Yes, because efforts to challenge election results are highly significant in a democracy. 2. Yes, because the attack was intended to pressure Congress to overturn the election results. 3. Overturn, because that is a more vivid description of the aim. Rider1819 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• As I explained in my comments from 13 December (see above), the lead must cover her development into a staunch Trump defender. Her prominence as a defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings is one of her main claims to notability. Her willingness to overturn the election is part of a broader theme and should also be in the lead. The text should also say "overturn" rather than the weak and broad "contest". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• I noticed this after I made my own edit to add this in. 1) It's probably the most significant thing she's been involved in to date and has generated a ton of press coverage recently, so at least for now it seems appropriate to put in the lede. It can always be revisited later. 2) Yes, it's obviously relevant that her vote came just after the attacks, it wouldn't be accurate to think of the two as somehow unrelated 3) I think contest may be most apt although it could go either way. I had written "object to" Proxyma (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Present it however, but her one vote should not be in the opening section. - CharlesShirley (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And why not? What's the standard?Proxyma (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW somebody else edited the intro to remove "notoriety" and I actually think that's fine, despite my comments here. Whether it's "notorious" or "notable" is for the reader to decide. So perhaps that's a reasonable compromise that we can all get behind. I just don't think it should be buried. A year from now or four years from now, who knows what the appropriate intro will be because new history is always being written. Proxyma (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agre with Proxyma. This merits inclusion in the lead. pbp 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for voting! I went ahead and restored the description of Stefanik's efforts to overturn the 2020 Presidential election to the lead, including putting her vote in the context of the US Capitol invasion. (FYI, there are similar edit debates ongoing on the Wiki pages of Nicole Malliotakis, Lee Zeldin, and Chris Jacobs, the other NYS Congresspeople who voted against accepting Pennsylvania's electoral college results.) — Rider1819 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

She is primarily known for her support for Donald Trump during the last two years or so (widely covered in reliable sources), including most prominently her role in the attempt to overturn his electoral defeat, so that must be mentioned in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Would like to weigh in by saying that more is better. Wikipietime (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Fund raising campaigns

Most active in fund raising via winred. A section may be pertinent. Recent example of text message attacking Cuomo on covid19 deaths; “ Had time to do all this ...blah blah blah... But not enough time to answer questions about nursing home deaths??”

The section would deal with lines of attacking Coumo. Wikipietime (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Misleading part on immigration

Under immigration the second paragraph states that she declined to condemn the family separation policy. This makes it sound like she was silent on the issue but the source provided even has the quote from her office:

"She is currently involved in discussions with leadership to move the process forward on legislation to address DACA, border security and that would include a provision to stop children from being separated from their parents."

So, maybe she didn't use the word "condemn" but she was publicly for ending it.

This adds to the feel that the immigration section (with the exception of the last paragraph) was written by someone who was solely interested in her views on Trump's policies instead of including any of her general views on these issues 97.83.76.186 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Add that She is one of the top 3 worst Republicans in the House alongside Matt Gatez and Marjorie Taylor Greene https://www.dailykos.com/story/2020/9/5/1975371/-Crazy-Stupid-Republican-of-the-Day-Elise-Stefanik 71.173.64.11 (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This seems subjective, and also has bad phrasing. ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 10:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

Please remove the reference to Srefanik as a businesswoman, or provide evidence that supports the claim.

"Elise Marie Stefanik (/stəˈfɑːnɪk/; born July 2, 1984) is an American businesswoman and politician..." 209.82.160.203 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)