Talk:Martha McSally/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AArcher1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as stub. --dashiellx (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Martha McSally is a far right/extreme right politician/former senator from Arizona who never won her seat but was given to her after death of John McCain, this should be pointed out in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien 111 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Added some images

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. Nomader (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A-10 Enforcing No-Fly Zone

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. Quickfoot (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Martha McSally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martha McSally. 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/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.

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) 04:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Senate election

I hate to use the biographies of living persons 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. Airbornemihir (talk) 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 --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump subsection is undue weight

I have removed the subsection on Donald Trump per WP:UNDUE. 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 WP:BEANS 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 WP:BRD 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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion was started, but 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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is covered by RS, making it WP:DUE, 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 edit warring behavior, disruption to make a WP:POINT and WP:POV-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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"The sub-section is perfectly fine." I wrote two sentences, and they were not hard to decipher. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You reverted the changes... really? [1] 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 WP:WAR, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:POINT as well as WP:IDLI. Yikes. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 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 Wikipedia 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[2] and Heidi Heitkamp's[3]. If politicians have extensively sourced views on other figures, such as Hillary Clinton (as in Heidi Heitkamp's article[4]) or Barack Obama (as in Dan Lipinski's article[5]), then that content also goes into the 'pol positions' section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Making a unilateral decision isn't in your scope, SS. Neither is it in mine. Especially after what you've done is called into question and challenged. That's why we have things like consensus and discussion at talk pages: to keep all of that from happening. You made a suggestion, it was a good one - and made sense, so I followed through with it. You then reverted yet again, without further discussion, based on your own unilateral WP:IDLI decision. That's not how Wikipedia works. I am starting to see, however, why you edit war so frequently: you think you know what's best for the 'pedia all on your own. Like I said on your talk page: you're going down a very slippery slope. Do you seriously not want to take a look at what you're doing, how you're doing it, and why after you end up blocked for disruption and edit warring? I can't discuss this any further at this time, but will be revisiting the whole thing later today. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem confused about how Wikipedia works. Editors are not required to accept just any edit that's made. You made what I perceived to be a bad edit (mass-removal of reliably sourced content), I reverted it, explained in edit summary why and then explained why on the talk page. You then made another edit that I perceived as bad (removal of reliably sourced + moving content to different sections) which I said beforehand that I disagree with, and I of course reverted it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not confused about anything. At this point, after all of your wikilawyering attempts laced with WP:IDLI reasoning, I'm now very clear on what you're doing and why at all of the politically-related articles you edit. More later. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Political positions section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently, the Political positions section contains a subsection titled "Donald Trump". Should this subsection exist in this section or should the content be moved elsewhere in the article? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Move - Donald Trump is not a political position and the existence of this subsection is inappropriate and the content misplaced. My suggestion for where the content should go is the following:
  • To the Tenure section: In February 2017, McSally voted against a resolution that would have directed the House to request ten years of Trump's tax returns, which would then have been reviewed by the House Ways and Means Committee in a closed session.[6]
  • To the 2018 US Senate campaign section: When McSally was asked in August 2018 if Trump's personal character, including his mockery of cancer-stricken Senator John McCain, was an issue, she responded, "Look, he was not elected to be the pope."
  • To the 2016 election section: During her 2016 congressional campaign, McSally distanced herself from fellow GOP candidate Donald Trump. McSally did not endorse Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election and did not take a position on whether she recommended voters in her district to vote for him. She referred to his comments in the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape "disgusting" and "unacceptable." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• It's fine Donald Trump is not a political position, but politicians have had to take positions on Donald Trump dating back to when people realized we couldn't just laugh his campaign away. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep in pol positions section. The views that a politician has should be in the pol positions sections, and not be distributed willy-nilly throughout the article. The latter is a big problem on a lot of politicians' pages, making it harder for readers to easily discern where a politician actually stands on issues. The attitudes that politicians have towards political figures are frequently in the pol positions sections, see for example Joe Manchin's[7] and Heidi Heitkamp's[8] views on Trump, Heidi Heitkamp's views on Clinton[9] and Dan Lipinski's views on Barack Obama[10]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Seems to be the most rational way to organize content. Neutrality^talk 02:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move - If she had given or issued one or more speeches or statements on the subject of Trump's character, then a 'Trump' sub-topic would be appropriate. Lumping together her various electioneering maneuvers, her vote on Trump's tax returns, and her reaction to the grab-'em videotape is an artificial conglomeration of matters related to Trump which gives the misleading impression—by naming the sub-topic "Trump"—that she has asserted an overarching political position on the subject of Trump. DonFB (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Neither is Russia or in fact much if it if we just look at the word. It is clear that support for Donny is a political position.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move parts - as -- ψλ said, these fit better in the sections about the 2016 race, her tenure, and the 2018 race. (p.s. The Russia section isn't a position either, it's a commentaary on someone elses actions rather than on her positions, so it could be removed or put into tenure.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• MovePer Winkelvi. (Summoned by bot) I wouldn't have taken issue with it, but now that is was pointed out I believe it should be moved. Slatersteven, it is a political position, but it should be briefer and not a sub section IMO. I would remove the second paragraph. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable topic that readers on both sides of the political spectrum would be interested in locking up. Seems easiest to access that info with the way it is currently organized. Comatmebro (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (Summoned by bot) along the lines offered by Snooganssnoogans. It is useful to organize information in ways that a reader might be interested in learning about. Learning about notes around views of the President, especially with intraparty disagreement, is useful. Am sympathetic to the idea that perhaps the section is overly detailed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Trump administration implemented the family separation policy

One editor keeps removing text saying so. That editor is wrong per a million RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Pressure to cast doubt on election results

One editor keeps edit-warring to remove two sentences about pressure that McSally got from national Republicans to cast doubt on the election process, and McSally's refusal to do so. The editor claims this has nothing to do with McSally. The editor is clearly wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Snoog! I know you've been around the block a few times, so you know that you should be WP:CIVIL and not attack editors personally (even if you don't explicitly name them, we know who you're talking about). Also, in an edit war there are always two sides and you happen to be the second side. Please play nice and work with SunCrow to solve this problem. You are both experienced editors and can talk page this without being rude. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans has mischaracterized the situation and my edits.

The disputed material reads as follows:

Reportedly, the McSally campaign was being pressured from the national Republican Party to be more aggressive. For example, McSally did not lash out at election officials or suggest that there was foul play involved in the counting of ballots as Florida Republican senatorial candidate Rick Scott did.

The language on Rick Scott is not encyclopedic, isn’t relevant to McSally, and is worded like a cheap political shot. After I reverted this material and it was reinstated, I revised it to read as follows:

McSally was reportedly pressured by the national Republican Party to argue that there was something amiss in the voting process.

Snooganssnoogans finds this attempted compromise to be objectionable as well. SunCrow (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) You removed any mention whatsoever that McSally had been pressured to imply impropriety with the election process under the stated rationale "material not relevant to tis article"[11]. (2) The cited source explicitly mentions Rick Scott as a contrast to McSally's behavior ("While Florida Gov. Rick Scott has lashed out at election officials over the vote counting in his state, McSally has been largely silent."[12]). Removing any mention of Scott is not an acceptable compromise. Contrasting McSally's behavior to Scott's is helpful to readers (today, a year from now, 50 years from now) and WP:DUE as the source explicitly mentions the contrast before elaborating on the pressure McSally faced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Who really cares that McSally didn't argue about the election results? What makes this info notable enough for inclusion? Just because the source compared McSally to Scott does not mean that this article has to. (2) As at least one other editor has noted in reverting this sentence, the tone of sentence is POV and not encyclopedic. SunCrow (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Well, for one: Politico. For more: Vox[13], The Hill[14], WaPo's Plume Line blog[15]. It is notable that a politician graciously conceded an extremely close election during an election season when so many other GOP politicians and operatives falsely claimed fraud, in particular given that she was pressured to cast doubt on the election process. (2) Are you referring to this editor[16] who has repeatedly been blocked for disruptive editing (and just so happens to be blocked right now)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Senator-elect?

The article states that she is a Senator-elect and that she will assume office in January. However, she was not elected, she was *appointed* by the Governor. But does that still mean she is a "Senator-elect"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.173.123.128 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It should properly read "United States Senator-designate". It used to be that you could directly edit the infobox data. Now it's been changed so that it automatically identifies future senators as "Senator-elect", even if that's technically inaccurate. Wish I knew how to change it, but that's way above my paygrade. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Image discussion

I'm currently trying to understand Special:Diff/874654304 -- maybe Corkythehornetfan or EggOfReason know more about this. I have been believing the comment to be the result of a discussion, but I can't find any. There don't appear to be archived sections of this talk page either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The infobox was marked with the comment "do not change unless there is a consensus to do so", which meant the image could be changed upon the introduction of a new discussion. I've reported the IP to AIV as they may be doing it on purpose. –eggofreason^talk 01:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi EggOfReason, all the comment means is that someone added a comment. I can't find any discussion about the current "consensus" that would justify such a comment. Please explain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Well, I believe that the comment means that the image could not be changed until there was a new consensus, which is strange because there was no earlier consensus to establish that decision (as you said). –eggofreason^talk 01:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I should have worded it differently, that is my bad. There really isn’t a consensus for this article, however it is a standard for Politics to use the most recent official photo for the government officials. The other users weren’t summarizing why they were changing it, therefore I was challenging their edits. Corky 05:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The two images

• 
  Blue
• 
  Red

Survey

• Red: Both photos seem to be official, but the "red" photo is newer: 2016-12-07 (red) vs 2015-01-14 (blue). Maybe someone has better reasons. I do acknowledge that the blue photo may "look subjectively better", influenced by personal color preferences. This is a global preference,¹ but should probably not matter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  ^{¹"Why is blue the world's favorite color? | YouGov". today.yougov.com. Retrieved 2018-12-21.}
• Red – it is a standard on here to always list the newest official photo for a member of Congress or any other government official. The other users who keep reverting to the old picture have not summarized why they’re changing it. Corky 05:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Red While I do personally think that the blue photo looks better/more flattering of McSally, the red photo is newer (by about two years). Since both are official, I think it behooves us to use the newer photo. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Neither There seems to be a consensus here to keep only the "red" photo, and I hope someone would remove the "blue' one. However, since it appears that there is a newer official portrait in the Infobox, why include the other two at all? Activist (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring "moderate" into the lede

Multiple IP accounts have been putting "moderate" into the lede of the article over the course of the day. The body of the article makes clear that she does have a congressional voting record but that her rhetoric and stated positions shifted rightward during the 2018 Senate GOP primary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not unusual for politicians with notable/unique political ideologies to have such mentioned in their lead. (See John McCain, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. However, McSally is hardly the face of "moderate conservatism;" she is both too unknown and too not moderate to get that distinction. Also, political ideologies are never mentioned in the lead sentence of politicians. Based upon those two points, I would argue that McSally's lead should not mention her ideology at all; if others disagree, it definitely should not be in the very first sentence as it had been. PrairieKid (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I would make the same argument as actions speak louder than words in my personal opinion. However, we should see how she acts in the new congress before making ANY decisions regarding the ideology she seems to adhere to.Wollers14 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

She is indisputably a Republican. Whether she is a moderate Republican is a subjective judgment. Leave it out. AlsoWukai (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Seniority

There seems to be a difference of opinion about how one becomes a state's senior senator. My understanding is that each state has two, who must normally have been elected or appointed at different times, and as far as I know always have been. They are regarded as senior or junior based on Senate service, not congressional service. This seems to make sense in a system where there will always be one who was first to the Senate. Can I suggest this as a basis to proceed on? Dolive21 (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you taking this to the talk page. I would have as well, but I did not think it was necessary; this really is quite cut and dry. I believe there are two major points of contention here, one regarding the importance of seniority and the regarding what makes Sinema the senior Senator.

As to the first, seniority is extremely important in the United States Senate. Not only an important title, it affects the role the Senator plays in the legislative process. It affects their power involving federal patronage, committee assignments, precedence, seating, etc. In nearly every other Senator's article, their status as the senior or junior Senator from their state is mentioned either the lead sentence or paragraph. (Each of the words in the previous sentence is a link to a different Senator whose article follows that rule.) In fact, I could not find a Senator's article where it was not in the very first sentence. Wikipedia has always considered it important--because it truly is.

The second issue regards how we know Sinema is going to be the senior Senator. If you look at the seniority article above, it makes it extremely clear: the time of day does not matter so long as two Senators are sworn in on the same day. If two Senators are sworn in on the same day, seniority is considered based on the following (in this order): former Senate service, former Vice President, former House service, former cabinet service, gubernatorial experience, population of state at most recent census, alphabetical by last name. In no where is time of day mentioned. (Ducey announced Sinema would be sworn in first out of respect for Sinema.) Sinema has served in Congress for 6 years, McSally for 4. Therefore, Sinema is senior. I made this clear in several edit summaries.

Frankly, and I do not want to cause trouble, this has been a bit frustrating. From my perspective, both points have been made and rehashed; they ought to be quite clear. Seniority is important and Sinema has it based on her Congressional experience. I have worked hard to say this several different ways I am tired of seeing my work reversed. I have made my point clearly. I am quite certain to be right, in this situation. That said, I will not add it back in without some consensus. If some of the other editors want to ignore an important point or express it incorrectly, so be it; I guess I can not fight it anymore. PrairieKid (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I should also tag the interested users so they might contribute. (Hoping this works--been a long time since I have tried it.) User:SunCrow User:RCarter555 PrairieKid (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

PrairieKid, thank you for taking the time to clarify this point. My only issue has been--and continues to be--that it seems premature to include information on seniority when neither Sinema nor McSally has been sworn in yet. I recommend that we wait a few days until they have been sworn in and then include this material. I will have no objection at that point, so long as it is appropriately sourced. SunCrow (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it is unnecessary to wait per WP:CRYSTAL as the swearing in is almost certain. But, I think it is a fair compromise. I will wait until it is truly official to add it back. PrairieKid (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sen. Martha McSally official Senate headshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Why include assault in the "Personal Life" section?

This is personal life: marriage and singlehood, kids, family, friends, pets and hobbies; the implied focus is on positive choices and learning-rich challenges unrelated to the rest of the subject matter.

This is crime, in particular assault (a negative non-choice):

"In April 2018, a Tucson man was sentenced to 15 months in prison for threatening to assault and kill McSally.[147]

On March 5, 2019, during a hearing on Sexual Assault and Misconduct in the Military at the United States Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, McSally informed her colleagues that she was raped by a by a superior officer while serving in the Air Force, stating "I also am a military sexual assault survivor, but unlike so many brave survivors, I didn’t report being sexually assaulted, like so many women and men, I didn’t trust the system at the time. I blamed myself. I was ashamed and confused. I thought I was strong but felt powerless. The perpetrators abused their position of power in profound ways. In one case I was preyed upon and raped by a superior officer." McSally did not name the officer, but said she shares in the disgust of the failures of the military system and many commanders to address sexual violence.[148]"

Instead of under "Personal Life", should the above matter have its own section, such as "Assault by Others"?

Congratulations on your wonderful, inspiring career, Martha! You've been a great light for so many people, you probably never think about it. I'm just another gal to whom you taught pugil sticks in Beast a million years ago. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:DCE0:ADB0:B08A:1EA1:6A5C:B018 (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2019

I request a more balanced presentation of Senator McSally by the Wikipedia staff. Senator is a very intelligent and very accomplished woman and yet, your staff has refused to elaborate one her accomplishments in detail... like they do for Democrat politicians.

This is very unbalanced and it seems VERY politically incorrect to favor one party over the other.

We want balanced bios on politicians. So ... please elaborate on the many accomplishments of Senator McSally.

Q: Aren't Google and Facebook and Twitter, etc. all in legal trouble now for being SO politically imbalanced? 68.185.114.85 (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make precise edits to pages rather than general pleas for article improvement. On a side note, Wikipedia doesn't have staff (not including the Wikimedia Foundation), but rather a community of thousands of volunteers. If you have any issues with this page itself, you may want to try to start a discussion here with whatever's bothering you, but be specific. General boo-hooing about Democrats getting treated better is likely to fall on deaf ears. But first, you should read Wikipedia's general policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

I would like to add that McSally received her Masters in Public Policy in 1990, per the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: PartedHeadache (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This bio is effectively self-published which I am reluctant to use for qualifications. Is there a secondary source which confirms it? Darren-M talk 12:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Social views

Too lazy to sign in to get around semi-protection, but IMO this sentence: "She opposes same-sex marriage and abortion in "nearly all cases", saying both issues should be decided at a state level", makes it sound as if she "oppose same-sex marriage in nearly all cases." I'm struggling to understand how precisely one might parse between cases of same-sex marriage. Perhaps she is okay with same-sex marriage between one cis person and one trans person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.140.161 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

98.177.130.183 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
She was not the first pilot...Jeannie Flynn Levitt was.

 Not done: while Jeannie Leavitt was indeed the first female U.S fighter pilot, reliable sources describe McSally as the first female U.S fighter pilot to fly in combat, which this article correctly reflects. Volteer1 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)