Talk:Cynthia Lummis/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cynthia Lummis. 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/20120109005611/http://wyofile.com/2011/12/wyoming-delegation-rep-cynthia-lummis-among-richest-members-of-congress/ to http://wyofile.com/2011/12/wyoming-delegation-rep-cynthia-lummis-among-richest-members-of-congress/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede
WP:ONUS has nothing to do with what information from the body should be referenced in the lede. I'm not going to edit war but I do insist that you present an actual argument here. GordonGlottal (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:ONUS says the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That means it is your responsibility to present an actual argument here. KidAd  •  SPEAK  05:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage in obviously bad-faith wikilawyering. The content is already included in the body, and if you want to contest its inclusion there you have not said so. ONUS does not refer, or apply, to what content from the article is worthy of the lede. GordonGlottal (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't wikilawyering to abide by policy, but if you aren't attached to the material, free to drop the issue. KidAd  •  SPEAK  05:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm just going to do an RFC if you're not willing to engage. I have already laid out my stance at the beginning, "It's not there because it's controversial, rather because it's (according to body) the only thing she's done in the senate, and the most notable part of her career thus far." GordonGlottal (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote, minutes ago, I'm not going to engage, and now I'm the problem? Start an RfC. Sounds like a solid plan. KidAd  •  SPEAK  05:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC on the lede
A user has altered the lede to Cynthia Lummis and refused to explain their edit, so I think the fastest way forward is an RfC. You can see the diff here; the question is, should the lede include the following content at the end:
 * In January 2021, Lummis objected to counting Pennsylvania's electoral votes as part of an attempt to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.

GordonGlottal (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No Violates MOS:LEADNO. KidAd  •  SPEAK  06:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes According to body, it's the only thing she's done in the senate of note. It's notable enough for the lede. GordonGlottal (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * She's been in politics since 1979 and one vote in 2021 is the most lede-worthy thing she's ever done? Nonsense. KidAd  •  SPEAK  06:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , If she's done something else which is notable and not in the lede, it's not reflected in the body of this page. GordonGlottal (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The lede, as it is now, does a fine job of summarizing the body. KidAd  •  SPEAK  07:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No (1) - Why is this content in two sub-sections (Elections and Tenure) under United States Senate? (2) - I see two primary sources being used to support the content, Roll Call Vote 117th Congress. (3) - Neither one of those primary sources explicitly state - Lummis joined a group of Republican senators, led by Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, in an unsuccessful effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. This statement is a violation of at least 3 core policies, not verified, contentious material and no original research - Articles may not contain...a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. This statement is not clearly stated by the sources. (4) - If these votes are the only thing she's done in the senate of note (notable), then I would expect to see significant coverage in reliable sources being used in the article to verify that claim, instead of original research. In fact, this statement should have already been removed, and it definitely does not belong in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No - MOS:LEADNO, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No - WP:V. I will say that if the proposal were limited to "In January 2021, Lummis objected to counting Pennsylvania's electoral votes", it would at least pass WP:V. I don't know if it would pass MOS:LEAD or WP:DUE however. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No MOS:LEADNOSea Ane (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No per MOS:LEADNO, WP:RECENTISM and last but not least WP:UNDUE CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No per reasons expanded upon above by User:Isaidnoway. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No A single recent vote is not due for a lead. And your only source is a primary source? This needs a snow close. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No as per other stated arguments Dege31 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No per above. ~ HAL  333  00:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No per all the above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No per MOS:LEADNO Idealigic (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Not notable enough. MOS:LEADNO, WP:RECENTISM apply. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Add certified results
Since Lummis refused to certify PA's results (which have repeatedly been found to be accurate and have withstood court challenges), I added the actual results to the Lead. Biden won PA by substantially more than Trump's narrow margin in the previous election.Parkwells (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What you added is unnecessary and not relevant to the article. Jon698 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)