Talk:List of American politicians of Armenian descent

What is a politician and clean-up

 * Judges and military officials are NOT politicians. They are not elected by the public and are appointed to serve in a non-partisan role.
 * Incorrrect.

Being appointed does NOT exclude an office from being defined as a politician. (see below). In fact, The Department of Defense IS a partisan appointment, as are nearly all lower ranking positions within. The Presidents entire cabinet is appointed and they are all politicians by definition. The Secretary of Defense is a "military official" and performs as politician. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep entries in ALPHABETICAL order by their last name!
 * List entries only once under proper category. Do not list twice on list. Please list under most recognized category. For example if subject has been both mayor and governor, please list him once under governor's and mention in blurb he was a former mayor of what city.
 * Keep blurbs short. Articles will discuss subject's notability.
 * Consolidated government roles. Keep state senators together, mayors, with mayors, and so on. No need for specific cities as they are all mayors of American cities, Please list years of service after blurb in order not to confuse reader that this is their life span.
 * Per Wikipedia guidelines for notability, all entries should have an article with references. There is no need to list Armenian ancestry for a specific entry (e.g. Armenian mother) when their Wikipedia article will discuss it.  They wouldn't be on the list if they weren't Armenian, wouldn't they?
 * Use of portraits of Glendale mayors is unnecessary. Glendale is NOT one of the top 50 largest cities in the U.S., therefore it's just a hamlet when compared to LA or New York. Save server space and do not make the list graphically enhanced unless you plan on adding a compressed portrait composite (see Canadians for example of a composite picture) to the article.

Please post any comments on this page only. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You may NOT dictate how this article is structured, written or formated. If you refuse to collaborate you may be blocked from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

CLEAN UP #2

 * Judges and military officials are NOT politicians. They are not elected by the public and are appointed to serve in a non-partisan role.
 * Keep entries in ALPHABETICAL (per the English language) order by their last name!
 * DO NOT ADD wikilinks for non-existing articles!
 * DO NOT ADD diplomats, judges, military officials as they are NOT ELECTED and serve NON-PARTISAN ROLES. Please create a new page for list of Diplomats, judges, and military personalities but NO ONE elects them as they are NOT politicians.
 * Keep mayors in one field. Glendale is a small city and all mayors should be kept together as state representatives, senators, etc.
 * Please create composite of personalities and STOP adding unnecessary gallery of Glendale's mayors. This is my second attempt to relay message to you. You created a composite on Puerto Ricans in the United States, therefore do the same here. Please provide feedback on this page.
 * Please add any terms served after the blurb, not before in order to prevent confusion with life-spans. For example: John Doe, mayor of Smithville (1997-2000).

This is my second clean-up. If you have any feedback or require assistance with the English language and proper grammar and site guidelines, please discuss on this page.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Clean UP #3
I have reverted your unconstructive edits. Please see this points from past discussions:


 * DO NOT ADD wikilinks for non-existing articles!

Furthermore, do NOT add multiple Wiki-links for the same subject. Redundancy is not welcomed in any article. ONLY DISCUSS ON THIS PAGE and NOT on my talk page. --XLR8TION (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You gotta be kidding me, right? Where do you see multiple Wiki-links and wikilinks for non-existing articles. I did remove them and you still reverted to yor last version. Please take a look at the current version and tell me what's wrong with it.


 * P.S. what's the problem with writing on your talk page? And stop your racist comments such as "Do you understand English?". -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  23:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All discussion on articles should be on the Article talk page! Their must be a history of conversation. My talk page is NOT for article discussion. RESPECT my TALK PAGE. Second, it's NOT racist to ask someone if they speak another language.  It's apparent English is not your first, so please drop the racism label and stop with your ignorance.
 * INCORRECT! Discussion of the article MAY take place on the editor talkpages. Also, Redlinks may be placed in articles. Even GA articles. Collaboration dictates content. Start working together or face sanctions from admin or community.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is racist to me and stop being aggressive. This is an encyclopedia and keep that in mind. Out of 7 billion people on our planet, as you may know, only about 400 million at most speak English natively and it's more than normal to speak another language. And it is your ignorance that have been shown here, not mine. Get your facts straight. -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  23:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

REMEMBER:


 * DO NOT ADD wikilinks for non-existing articles!
 * DO NOT ADD multiple wikilinks for same topic! Redundancy is NOT productive.

Third, if entries on the list DO NOT have valid references they will be REMOVED. I will remove entries with NO references of their Armenian ancestry by this weekend. --XLR8TION (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'll try to add reliable sources to each one of them today and tomorrow and then you can check the article on the weekend.-- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  23:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated above, redlinks amy be placed in articles. But, use of wikilinks should be kept to a single use the first mention of the term or subject. And, there are no time limits to be placed on work. If you plane to remove content you need to be sure it is NOT verifiable. You should discuss each issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Defining 'politician'
Please take a look at Politician. It clearly states that "Positions range from local offices to executive, legislative and judicial offices of state and national governments. Some law enforcement officers, such as sheriffs, are considered to be politicians."

THUS, all government officials, elected or not, including high-ranked military personnel, sheriffs, justices, are considered politicians.-- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  04:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ELECTIONS in the United States for the election of Judges. Justices are NOT elected and have to serve in NON-PARTISAN roles. Do you know anything about the U.S. political system?  DO NOT add them as they will BE REMOVED. Last I remember I don't recall an election for Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, or any other notable justice in the U.S. Please read the U.S. Constitution to understand the U.S. Political system. Once again, judges/justices enforce constitutional law and DO NOT introduce laws. The U.S. Constitution provides a system of "Checks and Balances" and electing a judge is unconstitutional.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @XLR8TION: Unfortunately, you are wrong. While Federal judges are all appointed, and most upper-level state judges as well, in many local jurisdictions, judges are elected.  Indeed, I vote for judges every time I go to the polls here in NYC, and there is a substantial literature discussing whether electing or appointing judges is the better system.  Whether those elected judges should be considered to be "politicians" is a separate question, but the argument can certainly be made that since they have to be approved by a party to appear on the ballot, they are politicians to some extent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * STOP WRITING LIKE THIS
 * WRITING THIS WAY DOES NOT prove your point.
 * Either give reasonable arguments or just leave. -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  05:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have freedom to write in any font or in Capitals. Apparently you are stubborn or not well-versed in politics and the use of caps will make it clear that JUDGES/JUSTICES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, and MILITARY OFFICIALS are NOT POLITICIANS. --XLR8TION (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, my friend, calling me stubborn doesn't prove your point. And where does it say that politicians have to be elected to be considered as such? -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  05:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DO NOT REVERT my edits. You are looking for an edit war you will lose. I have explained to you that justices are not politicians. Also this talk page has explained multiple points about NPOV, multiple wikilinks, redundant info, etc. Do not cause a edit war. This is advice to avoid conflict. If I do not respond in  few minutes, it means I am busy. I don't live in front of a computer 24-7.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, your edit warring, my friend. No reasonable arguments have been brought by you to my question. -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  05:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a final warning. Dialogue can last more than hour and will NOT be resolved tonight. Please stop reverting my edits and discuss or I will file grievance.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have provided valid reasons (please see history above). Do not give me that weak excuse for reverting my changes. YOu HAVEN'T provided any valid reasons for your edits.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it has't reached you yet, again, please take a look at Politician. It clearly states that "Positions range from local offices to executive, legislative and judicial offices of state and national governments. Some law enforcement officers, such as sheriffs, are considered to be politicians.". What is your argument to prove this wrong? The bold and capital letters? -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  05:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Politicians work in POLITICS (notice "politics" in the word "Politicians". They determine legislation.  A sheriff CAN NOT represent his district in local, state, or federal government. They are elected to in a non-partisan role and provide for the law enforcement in a region. --XLR8TION (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you said it, doesn't make it right. -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  05:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You have been reported for Talk Page vandalism. I have warned you numerous times to ONLY discuss this discussion on THIS PAGE. Once again justices, military, and law enforcement are NOT politicians. They can't represent constituents in any level of legislative government.  Why do you refuse to understand this?

Please read definition of politician. Stop reverting my constructive edits and vandalizing my Talk Page.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And which part says that only eleced officials are considered politicians and since when is thefreedictionary a reliable source.-- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  05:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

XLR8TION: I don't know where you get your information, but I have been voting in the United States for 40 years and every county level election I have ever voted in have had both sheriff and judge races. They run ads in the paper, they debate, they go to meet and greet forums. They are, unambiguously politicians. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * State or federal supreme or district court justices are not elected by the public.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sheriffs are not politicians. Their job is to enforce county/state-related laws and they can't introduce legislation. While some sheriffs can be elected, they have to serve in a non-partisan role when serving in their role to assure public safety.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just rename this article List of Armenian American officeholders and stop this nonsense?-- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  06:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * XLR8TION: It is a serious violation of policy to revert another editor's talk page edits.  Do not do it again. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not and haven't reverted anyone's article talk page edits, I am reverting edits made to my Talk page. Please see my talk page history. I have warned Yerevanci numerous times to NOT write on my Talk page. He refuses to listen.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Second, while renaming the list is a more plausible solution, reverting my constructive edits, to provide a concise, non-redundant NPOV list of personalities is unconstructive.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am guessing that you do not have a complete understanding of the American political system. A politician is one who runs for office.  period.  If a person has to campaign for an elected office, he has to politic.  That is what a politician is: one who politics.  I don't know how you could discount Webster's Dictionary as a reliable source.  See the definition here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * and you most certainly did revert my edit to this page here. Do not do it again.  What is so hard to understand.  This is not your talk page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's make it as simple as possible. Politician is a person engaged in party politics as a profession as you mention above. And politics is the art or science of government. And government has both elected and non-elected positions. Therefore, the CIA director, who isn't elected, is also a politician. Any person holding an office in the government is a politician. -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Federal and state supreme/district court justices do not have political campaigns. Last time I remember, Elena Kagan, the most recent Supreme Court justice was appointed by President Obama. Sonia Sotomayor started her federal judicial career when she was nominated by President George H.W. Bush as a federal district judge. Sheriff's are not politicians. Just like justices, they do not introduce laws, they simply enforce them.  Just like a U.S. Customs office at any port of entry, they have a duty to assure laws are being enforced.  While some Sheriffs are elected, sheriffs like Joe Arpaio in Arizona are their to enforce laws. Although Arpaio might have more conservative leanings, I am sure that if President Obama was attacked in his presence, he would defend him and be by his side should the President require medical assistance. Chris Christie as was recently criticized by members of his own party for working with the President after Hurricane Sandy caused major damage in his state.   While he is a politician, he placed duty over partisan politics first.  Sheriffs do not have a political platform and can't veto or sign bills.  They are only their for public safety management and law enforcement.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

CIA or FBI directors are not politicians. They are appointed to run government agencies involving domestic and international security issues. J. Edgar Hoover served as Director of the FBI for many years, throughout several U.S. Presidents terms. Please see definition of politicians for more reference.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Merriam Websters dictionary a politician is a person engaged in party politics as a profession. And politics is the art or science of government. And government has both elected and non-elected positions. Therefore, any person holding an office in the government is a politician. -- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  06:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Government provides a balance of powers. The Constitution separates the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. Justices served in a non-political/partisan role to enforce the laws. Cabinet members do not have campaigns to win office. They are to remain politically neutral in serving all citizens. The U.S. Constitution prohibits second class citizenship, hence appointed government officials must abide by the law to assure fairness to all Americans. Politicians are actively involved in politics. Justices and Sheriffs are not. Even during the State of the Union speech, viewers notice that Supreme Court justices who are present do not stand up to applaud the President, do not express any form of visible facial or verbal opinion during speeches, and remain quiet and motionless during the speech. --XLR8TION (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC) You're kidding, right? Life does not equal what the textbook you are reading told youGtwfan52 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but your claim about sheriffs is simply ignorant. In county elections, sheriff is frequently the most hotly contested office.  Politics has nothing to do with making legislation.  Politics, in the United States, is the process of government.  It is dealmaking, exerting influence over who gets government jobs, in some (many?) cases, taking bribes.  It is getting financial support to get elected to office and returning that support in favors.  There are honest upright politicians that engage in little or none of that.  But answer me this.  Why would a man who is qualified and has a job paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year leave that job to run for an office that pays $80,000?  The answer is: politics.  The elected office may not pay him more, but his influence in it is very valuable.  Your understanding here of what a politician is has approached WP:IDONTHEARYOU.  The time has come for you guys to get WP:DRN.  I don't think you are going to settle this on your own.  Good Luck. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your fallicy regarding the Supreme court: Earl Warren was chief justice for many years.  prior to that he was governor of California, an unarguably political job.  By your definition, he ceased being a politician just because he was appointed to the Supreme Court?  that is horse hockey! Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He wasnt governor and a justice at the same time, right? That would be a conflict of interest. It's like if I worked at McDonald's by day and work at Burger King at night. If he was Governor, you can add him. However, if he was only a Justice, doesn't fit the criteria for politician.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the official bio for Joe Arpaio {http://www.mcso.org/About/Sheriff.aspx]. Please show me where it says he passed/introduced/vetoed legislation? Mentions his enforcement of regulations in jails and enforcement of Arizona and Maricopa. In bio it states "His leadership and the excellent work of his staff have catapulted the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office into the ranks of elite law enforcement agencies."  Law Enforcement Agencies are not political legislatures. He reports to Gov. Jan Brewer who pays his salary to enforce local/state/federal laws.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you are just not hearing. Federal judges are appointed by the President, an elected official.  That is even called a "political appointment".  only in never never land would politics not be a factor in the appointment of a judge.  You don't think Obama considered politics when he appointed Sottomayor?  Anyone who is appointed to an office has a political link to the officeholder who appointed them.  I will grant you that a judge, unlike the CIA director, cannot be removed because they lose favor with the official who appointed them, but it is human nature to be beholden to the person who got you where you are.  Politics is about real life, not abstract theory.  Anyone who works in a non-civil service job in government is a politician.  I am glad you have such a generous view of how the US government works; apparently it serves you.  But it just isn't realistic.  I would suggest one of you guys go to WP:DRN and request mediation.  XLR8TION, your viewpoint is simply not based in fact.  It sounds great in theory, but it certainly isn't a realistic viewpoint of how things actually work. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone's"official" biography is a political document and would not be considered a reliable source here. And for the final time, politics has NOTHING to do with legislation! Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And law enforcement officials/officers are not politicians. What else is their to disucss?  That is Arpaio's official bio on the Maricopa County Sherrif's website. I am sure he would have edited it to add/remove information that would highlight his career experience. It highlights his achievements in office.  Nothing in the bio constitutes that he is a politician. Clearly states that he is a law enforcement official. It is a valid source of information. --XLR8TION (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Italic text
 * I am trying to be as nice as I can here, but this last post about Sheriff Arpaio is very illustrative of your lack of understanding of American politics. You chose the single most political sheriff in the whole country to show that a sheriff is not a politician.  If he is not a politician, why was his face on every national news network today advocating putting armed citizen posse's in all the schools in his jurisdiction?  That is advocating a political position, which is what politicians do, along with seeking out publicity, which he is an ace at.  Non-elected police chiefs don't seek out national media coverage for their policies.  They just execute them.  If the dictionary had a picture to illustrate their definition of "politician", they couldn't find a better one than a picture of Sheriff Joe. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheriff is an elected political office
(From Sheriffs in the United States)


 * In the United States, a sheriff is a county official and is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county. Distinctive to law enforcement in the United States, sheriffs are usually elected. The political election of a person to serve as a police leader is an almost uniquely American tradition. (The Honorary Police of Jersey, a UK Crown Dependency in the Channel Islands, have been elected since at least the 16th century.)

Justices are elected after appointment on the California Supreme Court
(From Supreme Court of California) --Amadscientist (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The justices are appointed to 12-year terms by the Governor of California and are subject to retention elections by the voters.

Considered a politician
(From Politician. Emphasis by editor)
 * People who are politically active, especially in party politics. A person holding or seeking political office whether elected or appointed, whether professionally or otherwise.  Positions range from local offices to executive, legislative and judicial offices of state and national governments.  Some law enforcement officers, such as sheriffs, are considered to be politicians.


 * Politician can be a term used in a derogatory manner to belittle a statesman. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving on
Just to let you know there are several more eyes on this article now due to the posting at AN/I. So let's move on past this silly debate about definitions and get some content! I might suggest that Chicago, Northwest Indiana, and Detroit might be good places to look as they all have extensive Armenian-American populations and at least in Northwest Indiana 30 years ago, many were politically active. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a much better photo of the George Deukmejian portrait. Let me locate it and i will upload it.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I uploaded the newer version over the one from Beyond My Ken. In this way no edit needed to be made and it overides the various uses the file has. Been meaning to do this for sometime (a few years actually) and this just reminded me to get it done.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Active Dispute

 * This is an active dispute. If I don't respond in a day, it does not mean it has been resolved. I have stated my reasons (see above) for my edits. Please discuss here before I submit a complaint with the site.   Second, as I have pointed out, all entries should be posted only once on list. If you see List of Armenian Americans, all entries fall into one category (the category with the highest notoriety; blurb mentions other career aspects).  All lists I have seen on Wikipedia lists the subject only once. The use of NPOV muust also be maintained The words "high ranked" violate this policy. Federal and State Supreme Court Justices are NOT politicians nor are Sheriffs, therefore they have been removed.  Please discuss on tis page only. If not resolved, I will submit a request for administrator assistance.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not revert without discussing on this page. 1 RR is now counted. Be civilized and discuss on here before you're reported.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to avoid an ongoing dispute with those not too familiar with the word "politician" I have renamed the article and redefined the opening sentence. Please do not add names more than once in this list to REDUCE redundancy. As per many lists on this site such as List of Armenian Americans,  List of HIV-positive people‎,  List of people of Dominica‎, etc., all entries on those lists (as set examples) appear once.  In order to save server space (think about how many articles can be created if consolidation is practiced),  please list all names once.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2RR. One more to go.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

XLR8TION, please discuss first and then edit. You haven't participated in a discussion and now you simply crossed the line -- Ե րևանցի talk  17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I don't endorse the unilateral page move in form, the result will give us a much easier platform to work on. It satisfies the roadblock on judges and sherrifs and narrows out politicians who are in appointed office.  Altho I stick to my guns on political appointments being politicians,  it does create far too many gray areas and because of that, I am fine with them being limited out.  On an unrelated topic, XLR8TION, do you not realize that there are several other editors now active on this page?  Your thinly veiled threats of "1RR, 2RR" against Yerevanci simply are not valid.  You also are editing against consensus now, as there has been agreement that judges and sheriffs are indeed politicians. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't get your way or demonstrate facts when faced with references and still remain steadfast with "I don't hear" you.....you change the goal post (the article name to suit your POV)? Unnaceptable. There was NO consensus for that move.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I currently see no reason to excude politicians on the basis of a confused editor that can't accept consensus and acts by moving the article itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears this is indeed an ownership issue and a POV issue. The editor XLR8TION has been edit warring to exclude long standing information to suit there own personal view of politicans.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article title discussion
The current name of this article was recently moved in the middle of a dispute in a manner that was designed to change the subject against consensus. This is not the way Wikipedia works. For this reason I have taken the liberty to begin this discussion to settle the naming of the article. Currently the name, "List of Armenian American office holders" is far to ambiguous and was only moved to this name as part of a manuever that could be seen as an attempt to game the system with an abuse of process (knowingly trying to use the communally agreed and sanctioned processes described by some policies, to advance a purpose for which they are clearly not intended). This can lead to disruption and further, more serious situations.

In looking at Article titles the main issues are:Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. According to Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists :''United States folk are a special case: List of United States people redirects to Lists of Americans which contains, amongst other things, lists by US state. (Special treatment is necessary because American is ambiguous.)". For recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness as well as consistancy the title would begin "List of American Politicians..." See List of American politicians of Irish descent begun in 2006. For these reasons I propose we rename the article List of American politicians of Armenian descent.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

✅--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (as proposer)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Sounds good. We don't have to invent new article titles. -- Ե րևանցի talk  06:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion in list
As for user XLR8TION's assertions from above as to what constitutes a politician, they are baseless and without any foundation. He has not demonstrated in anyway how his POV is accurate. He continues to edit war and use tactics to manuever his POV into the article and tilte against the consensus of editors, reliable sources, consistancy with other Wikipedia articles and plain common sense. Since December of 2009 the list of politicians of Armenian decent have included all of the positions he is fighting against consensus for exclusion, as seen on the original list found at List of politicians of Armenian descent.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Question---Do the other ethnic lists of politicians contain non-elected politicians? Any observer of the American political scene knows that professional politicians bounce back and forth between elected and appointed jobs. Cheney and H. Clinton are two prime examples. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. let me take a look. --Amadscientist (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes....in fact my newly elected congressman, Dr. Ami Bera was listed at List of politicians of Indian descent simply because he ran (and the information has not changed. I'm on it) yet lost his first race against Dan Lungren.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the original intent of this article was to list notable politicians and even the term "office holder" does not exclude appointees such as the Secretary of Navy etc. I believe the list can and should include notable politicians that have run for office, even if they have not won. A politician is anyone who seeks office, but they should only be included if notable and with consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you would advocate a WP:WTAF position for this list? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In what manner? Before the name change? Not exactly clear whats being asked.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I edit a lot of school articles and use that essay often in edit summaries.  You are saying if I understand you that all the individuals in the list should be blue-links.  Correct? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no. I don't believe that. In fact, unless something has changed redlinks are acceptable for even a GA article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTPEOPLE So one ref for dead guys and two for living guys (or a Wikipedia article, establishing their ethnic heritage and notability)? Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been a tad busy. Uhm...however notabliltiy is established is what we should follow. Notablility is always a very hard nut to crack, so yes...best to stick to guidelines and policy for that. (see below)--Amadscientist (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions
As the creator of the article, there are few questions I need to ask. Just want to clarify that I do not think the current version of the article is good. For instance, List of American politicians of Irish descent doesn't categorize the list by anything but alphabetical order and to be honest I don't think that is an article a reader wants to see. What if I am a reader that doesn't know anything about Irish Americans and just want to know how many US Congressman of Irish origin there have been or currently are. I hope this sounds rational.

Alright, my questions are
 * 1) is it acceptable that the names of politicians are being mentioned multiple times in a list like this?
 * Articles need not be so consistant that they follow structure of other articles. That is a consensus matter. However, I would say that creating a list that allows a name multiple times may not be encyclopedic. See if that can be condensed--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) do you think that their names should only go under the section of the highest position they have held during their lifetime?
 * See above.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) are they going to be organized in chronological or alphabetical order?
 * Normal procedure of most list is by alphabetical order, however if you are listing the positions of each individual, then that should be chronological.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) can notables that do not have articles be included in this list? -- Ե րևանցի talk  06:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, notablility for an article is not the same as notablility for mention in a stand alone list. One need not be notable enough to have an article as AFDs can have an effect on article inclusion and that is a consensus decision. Per Notability ''"The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Consensus detemines if inclusion should limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Two more questions. Is making bold the incumbent notables acceptable? Is including officials like Paul Robert Ignatius, the former Secretary of Navy, right?

I suggest that we set some basic rules that will be used to rewrite the article. Here are some of my own:
 * no repetition, placed under the highest position held to this date
 * chronological order, if no office ever held then in alphabetical order

Please add more if you have any.-- Ե րևանցի talk  20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of American politicians of Armenian descent. 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/20100614221450/http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/hye_sharzhoom/vol26/oct04/karabian.htm to http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/hye_sharzhoom/vol26/oct04/karabian.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100303074233/http://www.waukeganweb.net/pastmayors.html to http://www.waukeganweb.net/pastmayors.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907163403/http://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=1346 to http://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=1346

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) 03:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of American politicians of Armenian descent. 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/20130922001359/http://www.mycivilrightsstory.net/My_Civil_Rights_Story/About_Brad.html to http://www.mycivilrightsstory.net/My_Civil_Rights_Story/About_Brad.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130115013331/http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2011-04-14-sixth-term-a-charm-for-mayor-scott-avedisian to http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2011-04-14-sixth-term-a-charm-for-mayor-scott-avedisian
 * Added tag to http://www.valleyvoicenewspaper.com/vv/stories/2011/vv_shuklian_1225.htm

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) 09:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)