Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics/Archive 2

Discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. - MrX 🖋 01:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Intros of the 2020 & 2016 US presidential elections.
Separate discussions, concerning the intros to the 2020 United States presidential election & 2016 United States presidential election articles, are currently happening. Editors' input from this WikiProject, would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. feminist (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC regarding whether political party should be listed in Sheriff David Clarke's infobox
There is currently an RFC at Talk:David Clarke (sheriff). The RFC reads: What political affiliation should be listed in David Clarke's infobox? Should it be "Democrat" or just left blank?
 * Option 1: List "Democrat" in the infobox
 * Option 2: Leave the infobox blank.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimKaatFan (talk • contribs)

Trump Turnberry
Somewhat related to the above discussion on excessive links, additional input would be appreciated at Talk:Turnberry (golf course). Many thanks. wjemather please leave a message... 12:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What source for California State Assembly election results?
I was researching Wikipedia for California state legislative election results and trends. Wherever I looked, election results were given with no sources! See, e.g., 2018 California State Assembly election, 2012 California State Assembly election, California's 10th State Assembly district, Marc Levine. This seems a striking departure from Wikipedia's requirement of citing reliable sources for content, and especially for information about living persons.

In addition, as these same examples show, the same election results are apparently entered by hand in multiple articles. This seems like both extra work, with no gain in content for Wikipedia, and an increase in the likelihood of human errors. It would be a better practice to have this information in one article, with pinpoint internal hyperlinks in other articles to which it is relevant. I welcome your responses.—Finell 05:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline spam in see also sections
Several article are getting spammed with links to Timeline articles by. Generally it is most or all of these. Some of the articles that seem to have it are Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Oleg Deripaska, and Sergey Kislyak. Though there appear to be tons of articles bombed like that. Should they remain and should some of those timeline articles be merged and condensed? PackMecEng (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
 * Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day)
 * Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017)
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017)
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)
 * This phenomenon is an abuse of the "See also" sections and should be curtailed. To the more general point, debate on the scope of those timelines has been raging ever since they were created; I don't think there is any way to obtain consensus there. But the spamming must stop. — JFG talk 09:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I partially agree. If a person's name is mentioned multiple time in in these timeline articles, it is very appropriate to link them in the see also sections. An alternative would be a navbox. That said, I think there should only be one timeline article per timeline subject and the content should have to meet a minimum inclusion criteria per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The merging/condensing/spam stopping could be submitted to a centralized RfC is someone can come up with a set of clear inclusion criteria. We were able to (partially) solve a similar issue with political endorsement lists with WP:ERFC. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue there is most of the people from what I can find are just listed in the "Relevant individuals and organizations" section which appears to be copy pasted between articles. I like the centralized RFC idea, I am just terrible at wording those. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones I checked had at least there mentions of the name. I don't know why there needs to be a listing of the names in the articles anyway. wikilinks would tend to serve the same purpose. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For example Sergey Kislyak is listed only once in Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018), and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020). All in that relevent individuals section. PackMecEng (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In the first article, he is mentioned three times (by last name only) in addition to the one time he is listed in the list. I haven't checked the others. - MrX 🖋 17:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was only searching full name. Where would be a good centralized place for a discussion on the merge and condensing? PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly here, with notifications on all of the affected pages. It's probably not of broad enough interest to have it at the village pump. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What about in the mean time, while we get that ready, we replace all those links with a link to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which links to all those other timelines and gives more information? PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess that's fine. - MrX 🖋 18:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay with that as well? If so I will start tomorrow with replacing them. PackMecEng (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Brilliant idea. Go for it! — JFG talk 04:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't spamming. These articles are related.  X1\ (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See related context of inclusion v. exclusion at May 2019 DRN also. X1\ (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * see Talk page history for discussion of the epic-ness of this topic. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have participated on the talk page. I abandoned all hope when I realized that I was outnumbered by editors who think we need exhaustively detailed timelines. I don't think that level of detail belongs in an encyclopedia. - MrX 🖋 21:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * the "Relevant individuals and organizations" transcluded list was created long ago to avoid errors and repeating info. X1\ (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it won't be fine as has already been discussed. Individuals are mentioned in different segments of the continuous Timeline (broken into segments due to Special:LongPages).  The current name of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" is intended to be renamed Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before July 2016, which is a highlight of why it is inappropriate (wrong segment of the Timeline) to "consolidate" to that segment. X1\ (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These tag team deletion motions can be interpreted as vexatious, and a disservice to the wp:Reader.  X1\ (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Slow your roll, no one here is tag teaming. Everyone's view of this deserves to be heard. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And you,, have been hearing from a "team", on one side (here, until now). See the "team's" history at the Timeline(s), as pointed to above, in my comments.  X1\ (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Content discussions should be evaluated on their merits, not by who participates in them. By the way, no need to ping me every time you reply. I'm already here. 😏 - MrX 🖋 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies MrX. My intent was to identify with whom I was communicating, and give separation to the potentially different items.  In retrospect, I could skip the templates after one, and use plain text that the template would create.  My goal was not to barrage you with pings.  X1\ (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You threw me, MrX, when you stated Everyone's view of this deserves to be heard and not by who participates in them; but I do agree with the sentiment that content discussions should be evaluated on their merits. X1\ (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is it taking up large chunks of the see also section for largely the same topic. All seeming to fall under Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, so a clean and simple solution would be replace the eight links with one. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * So I replaced a good chunk of them but it appears has reverted citing Yes, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics an example here. So what gives? Consensus is clear here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly. X1\ (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * seems to be suffering from the WP:IDHT syndrome. 's suggested course of action is fair and proportionate, and it has been supported by many editors in this discussion (including by several who contributed to building the timelines). Further reverts to re-impose excess links would be disruptive. — JFG talk 02:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Retconning ? X1\ (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of this discussion, but saw X1 insertion at Donald Trump Investigations, PackMecEng removal of the 6 hatnotes there (3 old and 3 new), and X1 revert which claimed the new as long-standing. I returned it to long-standing 3 4 hatnotes and started a TALK thread with pings annnnd X1 Only rereverted ... and indented my thread under his own title/post.  Will some others please visit and TALK?  I’ll try to unmangle my TALK, but I don’t get the feeling X1 read HATNOTE, is listening to me, trying to find a better way, or at least one acceptable to others.   Maybe just a 4th opinion will mitigate behaviour and turn the edit war to something else. The Presidency section condensed timeline to one hatnote instead of expanding, for example.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Donald Trump (and its article ESs) for a proper description not only of edits, but also the long-standingness (since December 2017).  Also see directly connected section (inexplicably created separately by u:Markbassett) at Talk:Donald Trump just below the previous section.  X1\ (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The value to the wp:Reader, in not using an inappropriate dab in the style of Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency, is the Reader can find the topic in the vast Timeline better when segment(s) the topic is/are not in are not included. It is a disservice to the Reader just, in effect, saying "you try to find it" in these decades.  It is especially better for the Reader when the topic isn't in any of the other (currently eight) segments.  The Reader can more easily find the topic in a half a year, than check eight pages, spanning 34 years.
 * Something to consider, even though it will be a disservice to the Reader, is to sparringly use the recently created Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia. It covers six of the segments: transition, 1H17, 2H17, 1H18, 2H18, and 2019–2020.  If the topic is in all six of these segments, the Reader may get that cue from the "timeline of investigations" dab.  They would, disconcertingly, have to make that connection themselves though.  This is not a better choice for the Reader.  X1\ (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Surely one "See also" Russiagate link is enough per article. Choose one - and only one - article to link to. More than that is just spam. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wishful thinking. History is not that simple.  This topic is epic.  It isn't a "one topic on one day" situation. See above, and View History(s) of articles, and see the May 2019 DRN, etc ... It would be helpful for the quality of the Timeline to include other major still-active (positive) contributors to the articles to this discussion; for example the major contributors to the "before July 2016" page, besides just, such , , , and .  X1\ (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I see the merits of both sides (except for the timeline condensation arguments that have failed to achieve consensus on the timeline talk pages). I suggest using the navigation template Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, which includes links to the timeline articles, instead of listing the timelines individually in the See also section. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I do see the logical argument of which includes links to the timeline articles; that only says to Reader, in effect, "you may look somewhere somehow-related in the group of wikilinks, you may see". See my response above, for a counterargument of drawing the Reader to the relation of the topic to specific segments in the Timeline.  It helps show how the related-topic fits into the context of history (the Timeline).  X1\ (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I see merits in PackMecEng's idea above: "...we replace all those links with a link to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which links to all those other timelines and gives more information?"
 * I DO see that huge group of links as spamming (although I don't think that is the intent, the effect is the same). Regardless of intent, that must stop. The 2016 article links to all of them, so use only it, unless there is a VERY good reason for including one of the other timelines. The fact that a name appears in that long list of names is not a good enough reason. -- Valjean (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you see as the criterion of VERY good reason, ? Please go further than one example.  What if the name appears many times, for example? X1\ (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The only alternative, if not adjunct, to the Timeline wikilinks, is to add a sentence or more that embeds the related Timeline wikilinks into context. Laborious, and adds many bytes... X1\ (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How could Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections cover all that is in the Timelines (eight articles, from SPLITting due to size growth) when it is just one page? X1\ (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In the vast majority of cases a single link would suffice and that should be to the top level article on the subject (e.g. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), etc.), not one or more timelines which can easily be reached from the parent article if the "reader" wishes to follow-up. As noted by others, it would also appear undue for there to be a link or links placed in articles that are only related peripherally, speculatively or by vague implication (as they have been at Turnberry (golf course)). wjemather please leave a message... 12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , please elaborate on etc. When you say vast majority that implies some where a single link would not suffice: what are those, and why?  What are all the top level article[s] on the subject?  Or the other side of the coin, what are all the non-top level articles on the subject?  If there is a consensus on that exact list, it will avoid future potential confusion; so this is a question to all concerned.
 * The Reader must know there is a connection if the "reader" wishes to follow-up., and the Timelimes are there to show the connection.
 * peripherally is subjective in such a vast topic.
 * None of the links I know of are speculatively, and
 * None of the links I know of are by vague implication. All have RSs.
 * Trump Turnberry has a paragraph on the connection to the Trump/Russia timeline, as has been pointed out in ES/Talk, and the paragraph is obvious. X1\ (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I was trying to be as brief as possible so perhaps my original comment lacked some clarity. As such I'll address those points in order:
 * Vast majority is simply sensible phraseology as it allows for "there always being an exception to any rule" – I cannot think of any, but I'm sure there will be.
 * It seems fairly obvious (especially to those involved) what the relevant articles are from the various lead sections & navboxes, so no, I won't be listing them.
 * Peripherality can absolutely be determined somewhat objectively in the first instance. If something/someones involvement is not covered in reasonable depth anywhere (or at all) in the main top-level articles or timelines, then its/their involvement is probably insignificant and it/they should be assumed to be peripheral unless otherwise determined by consensus. Being part of a long and largely indiscriminate list is not sufficient reason for adding links.
 * Speculatively or by vague implication (or tenuously) relates to the "reliable" sources themselves. Unfortunately given the polarising subject matter, reliability and neutrality in sources is hard to come by. Many will discuss multiple tangentially related subjects simultaneously with the intention of drawing the reader to an implied (but not explicitly stated) conclusion. For example, discussing Trumps finances and the finances of known rogue organisations while also mentioning Trump owns golf courses alongside a picture of him at Turnberry – nothing has been stated explicitly, but we know what is being implied. Further, as an example of speculation, the media speculated greatly on the contents of various subpoenas, sometimes having to correct their stories later (worse, some don't bother issuing corrections).
 * As noted on the talk page there, even the remaining paragraph in the article is not specifically about Turnberry but more relevant to Donald Trump and golf. The same applies, but even more so, to the rest of what you added.
 * wjemather please leave a message... 15:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * for your comments are about Trump Turnberry, I both recommend you take them to that Talk page, along with self-reverting there and, if needed, returning to a state before my recent edits (long-standing) so that you follow BRD. Most of the disagreements we have at that article are not related to this discussion thread.
 * I do not follow most of what you are attempting to communicate, and seem to be subjective internal thoughts, filled with weasel words; so respond at the proper Talk page; so, hopefully we can come to an understanding there.
 * Regarding your reliability and neutrality in sources comments; no, there are many RSs and they are fairly easy to find. Sure there is a lot of partisan junk out there, but it is not hard to steer clear of the vast majority of those.  Quality RSs post corrections as needed (see WP:RSPSOURCES discussions).  Your one example is not a reason to assume quality RSs are hard to come by.  Facts exist.  Avoid unsubstantiated broad generalizations from a tiny sample set.  Quality RSs are the bricks that build wp.
 * On first look at "Donald Trump and golf", it was created January 2018‎, while Trump Turnberry was created March 2005‎. As appropriate, items could be copied/moved to the newer article.  I will look into it shortly, as I have been unavailable to edit the last couple of days.  X1\ (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As someone who used these timelines for editing, I must say: they are very helpful and provide a lot of important details, exactly as they should. . I think the timeline pages are more concise and frequently even more informative than the actual pages on the subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you have no issue with BLP see also sections like these? Dana Rohrabacher, Paul Erickson, Konstantin Kilimnik, and George Nader where the timelines serve no purpose for the reader and take over the whole see also section. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Each of those individuals are in each of those Timeline segments. X1\ (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many people are mentioned in many articles, you do not put every one of them in their see also section. I will give it about a week more here then make the changes inline with consensus here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides my other comments, see this. X1\ (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't actually address my concerns or the concerns of anyone here that is opposed to what you are doing. PackMecEng (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It addresses the logic and justification of my actions. What are your justifications, appearances?  X1\ (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not go down that road, shall we? It seems to me that consensus here is abundantly clear and further pushing of this would be disruptive. To finish, it should also be noted that some of the use of article talk pages and edit summaries in relation to this topic borders on WP:SOAPBOXing and should also cease. wjemather please leave a message... 10:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you were confused, ; my indent meant it was a question for.
 * Your comment, Wjemather, on my ES selfnote method of memory and editing process is inappropriate. This method is well within the wp culture bounds, your comment of should also cease is not. X1\ (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The target of the comment was clear and not misunderstood, and questioning of contributors motivations is simply not acceptable. Also not acceptable is using minor edits to soapbox theories & questionable external links in an edit summary – I suggest using userspace if such reminders are needed. wjemather please leave a message... 09:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @PackMecEng. No, I think that providing links to timeline pages from BLP pages of persons noticed in timelines (and especially such as Konstantin Kilimnik) is helpful for a reader and certainly not a BLP issue. @Wjemather. What consensus, exactly? I have no idea what it might be after quickly looking at this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well at this point it is you and X1\ infavor of listing all the timelines and me, Wjemather, Valjean, Websurfer2, Thucydides411, Markbassett, JFG, and MrX against. With Websurfer2 offering an alternative of listing the navigation template Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections instead of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections but still against the timelines individually. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that using navigation template is a good solution, but only if we include all involved people (like Kilimnik) to the template. They are not there. Include all involved people to the template, and I will agree with you. However, if they are not included (as right now), I will agree with X1, although this is not the best solution. Excluding links from both BLP pages and the template has an effect of hiding important information from a reader (i.e. misinforming the reader), in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You overstate your position again, . It doesn't appear  or  are against either.  X1\ (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I am in favor of listing links to timelines in articles in which the subject is mentioned non-trivially on the timeline. However, I still think the timeline articles are far too detailed and would prefer one article only listing the major events. - MrX 🖋 15:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Major events are covered in the one page Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and roughly speaking those with the "minor" events are in the eight Timeline pages, . Editors of the "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" use the Timeline to build that page, see Timelines Talk histories.  Although it would be nice if this topic weren't so epic and significant, and thus have a short article, but it is, so it is long.  X1\ (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One point that nobody has made is that some "See also" links in biographies may violate BLPSEEALSO. See also sections are actually pretty rare in biographies for the obvious reason that we do not want to make contentious associations.Devoting too much space for single topic prominently is UNDUE, which cannot be remedied by shoehorning other topics into the section. See also links are not an alternative for proper use of navigation templates or intuitive linking within text. Politrukki (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not contentious in that they have all been backed by RSs. X1\ (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being unclear. I forgot to mention that I was discussing See also links in general, not cases mentioned in the opening post or timeline links specifically. Politrukki (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Ford FAR
I have nominated Gerald Ford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of state legislatures in this taskforce
Hi all, I noticed that the Michigan Legislature is included in top-importance American Politics, but those of neighboring states are not. User:Imzadi1979 claims that all state legislatures belong in American politics. Let's build a consensus here! User:Mr. Guye User:Jon698 User:TxStateAlum17 User:MJL User:Ed._Jishnu User:Wei4Green User:Oa01 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of the state legislatures are major components of American politics. The importance level should be either High or Top.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm for calling the high. There are 50 state legislatures and 99 state legislative chambers across the United States. I'm not of the mind that all 50 are on the same level of importance to this task force as articles like Politics of the United States, State of the Union, etc. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should be rated as high. State legislatures are an important part of American politics and government, but not important enough for top. - Jon698 talk 13:17 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe each congress should be high and each chamber should be mid? Do we include DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.? 70.122.40.201 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

70.122, that sounds reasonable. The territories and DC should just be considered states for this purpose. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements in Congressional biographies
Is it generally accepted to put endorsements in biographies of congresspeople or congressional candidates? (endorsements for them, not people they have endorsed)? I'm working on Draft:Nate McMurray. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Massachusetts legislative districts and sessions
We're having a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts about the naming convention for sessions of the state legislature (currently, e.g., 179th Massachusetts General Court (1995–1996)); and for legislative districts (currently, e.g., Massachusetts Senate's 3rd Middlesex district and Massachusetts House of Representatives' 3rd Middlesex district). Input from WP:AmPol members is welcome! ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 03:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Turning Point USA
An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Mormon members of congress
Hey, I created List of Mormon members of the United States Congress today. I found some sources with detailed lists of all Mormon members before 2000 but I'm a little worried I missed a few from the period from about 2001-2009. If anyone knows of any that I missed that would be appreciated. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

House leaders
I wonder if we should have something to different House Majority Leaders from the Speakers of the House? GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

See for example Template: Democratic Party (United States), which lists the House Minority leaders & the House speakers, but not the House Majority leaders. Though this arrangement is understood by Americans in general, outsiders will find it confusing. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Jenny_Durkan
Could someone look at the content issues there? Needs more discussion. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 09:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant split discussion
Talk:Postal voting in the United States. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert Rubin and the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act
The current article about former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin currently contains no mention of his role in promoting the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. On the talk page for his biographical article, I have posted some example sources verifying the fact, and even a short draft of what a section about it could look like. I am looking for help because I have a COI with the topic, as I am working on his behalf to improve the entry. Would any editors here be interested in having a look at this request and weighing in there? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Category for independent politicians who caucus/affiliate with Democrats?
Was thinking maybe there should be a category within Category:Independent politicians in the United States for politicians like Bernie Sanders or Al Gross or Angus King who aren’t officially Democrats but run in their primaries/caucus with them. Thoughts? DemonDays64 (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Action plan for tomorrow?
Could we have an action plan to coordinate tomorrow's election?  Mr. Heart  (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of digital ink has been spilled on this topic at Talk:2020 United States presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?== You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major"== You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major". Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Territory Leaders
Hi. I just added the territory leaders to the country incumbents section at '2019 in United States' and I was wondering, because there's only one of me, that the Years and Politics communities could get together and help me add the territory leaders to all of the year pages? Will be posting this to 2019 in the United States and WikiProject Years as well.Elipoloos123 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Temporarily redirect Presidency of Joe Biden to Presidential transition of Joe Biden
If you support or oppose this proposal, you are invited to comment here. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for initial review- Trumpism
This article recently received a peak of 8500 page views and is currently averaging 2000 per day. Could someone have a look at it and assign it a class? I am thinking it is maybe a C or even a B due to the high quality of most of the 64 or so citations. Any suggestions for improvements posted on its talk page would be greatly appreciated by our editors there. Thanks J JMesserly (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War has an RFC
American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon
Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC
User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New template available to make abbreviations easier
U.S. politician abbreviation is now available to make it easier to generate things like I‑VT, D‑CA 47th, or D‑TX 4th. Feel free to use it! Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh.. not a bad idea! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden/Harris and similar redirects
There is a discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12 about Biden/Harris and similar redirects where your comments are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Economic policy of x
See Articles_for_creation/Redirects_and_categories. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Recommend adding this project to David Ruggles article
Hello. I've been a long time absent contributor, but recently heard an interview with Jonathan Wells, the author of The Kidnapping Club: Wall Street, Slavery, and Resistance on the Eve of the Civil War on the subject of his book, which included Mr. Ruggles, as he wrote a contemporary artcile on the subject in the early 19th century. I see that the currentle article is not so bad, but still a start up and so am waving it under the nose of projects I thought it would fall under in the hopes that more active contributors might add to it/fix it/etc. IMHO (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on description of Southern strategy in lead of Republican Party
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States) § RfC: Southern strategy description in the lead. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address Featured article review
I have nominated Gettysburg Address for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

GiveSendGo needs and article
This Christian fundraising website has become clearly notable due to its association with the far right, eg this and many more. Some of our articles mention it. I'd rather not create it due to time constraints, but it would be great if someone did! Doug Weller talk 14:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion of interest...
..to the members of this WikiProject can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Robin Danielson Act
Hey there. Brit here, not an expert in U.S. politics, and I've just created Robin Danielson Act. If anyone has any information to add to the article I would appreciate it. Thanks! --Bangalamania (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar has an RFC
Ilhan Omar has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

RfCs of interest

 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents with Discussion of president series boxes,
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents with Discussion of vice-president series boxes. Shearonink (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review
I have nominated Malcolm X for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice
Heads up, RFC taking place, which may affect American political bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

US governor intro inconsistencies.
I've corrected the intros to 14 of the 50 US state governors articles. They erroneously had head of state in them. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed merging Media coverage of Bernie Sanders into Bernie Sanders
See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Sanders#Merge_Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders_into_Bernie_Sanders Yleventa2 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Andrew Cuomo
–– FormalDude  talk  21:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC) –– FormalDude   talk  21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated William Henry Harrison for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

US House of Representatives special elections articles
Given the two examples 2019 United States House of Representatives elections & 2021 United States House of Representatives elections articles, which deal with House special elections. Perhaps we should change all those articles to Year United States House of Representatives special elections form.. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Shortname templates
As the result of a TfD earlier this year, all the /meta/shortname, color and abbrev templates were merged into a single module. In the process, the contents of much of the shortname templates has been moved into the abbrev field in the module. An RfC on this and its potential impact has been started on the module's talkpage. Input from WikiProject members is welcome. Cheers, Number   5  7  20:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack
A request for comment that may interest members of this project is occurring at

The question being posed is: should the article stay in the following categories? Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2021, Category:Rebellions in the United States, Category:Coups d'état and coup attempts in the United States. –– FormalDude  talk 03:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Brooks Brothers riot
Notifying interested users. Please see this. Best. -- M h hossein   talk 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

how do we get members to help focus on a particular article?
how do we get members to help focus on a particular article that needs more sources?

Thanks Quiet2 (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Truthiness
I have nominated Truthiness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Smokeout"
I'm having a hard time finding an article that discusses a "smokeout" as what recently happened in the South Dakota legislature. Any help? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It's apparently jargon used only in South Dakota so I certainly wouldn't expect Wikipedia to have it: "An act which invokes of Joint Rule 7-7 whereby one-third of the members of a house can require a committee to deliver a bill to the full body by the next legislative day." . Reywas92Talk 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with Robert Rubin biography?
Hello, this is a similar message to one I posted on the parent project's talk page; I haven't received a reply there, so I figured I'd try here: I am working on behalf of the former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin to update to the article about him. (Because of my COI, I will not directly edit the article.) I am hoping someone here would be willing to take a look at my latest request. I'd appreciate anyone who would be willing to offer feedback or even consider making the proposed change. Happy to answer any questions about the request, as well. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

DHS Disinformation Governance Board
The article Disinformation Governance Board was created yesterday, with almost entirely deprecated biased sources. Not a lot of neutral coverage yet, but I did my best to do initial cleanup. Could probably use additional eyes. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie Cutter request
Hi editors, my name is Christian and I work for Precision Strategies. I was hoping to make some updates the Stephanie Cutter article and was wondering if anyone here could help me out. I won't make any edits myself due to my conflict of interest. Thanks in advance! PrecisionChristian (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up List of George Floyd protests in the United States
It's been more than two years since the 2020 racial justice protests kicked off. There's more than four dozen pages that are just cataloguing protests by locality, and it seems to me that many of these don't demonstrate notability independently of the larger protest movement, or basically say nothing beyond what would or should be covered in a few lines, under WP:NOTNEWS and demonstrating enduring importance, e.g. George Floyd protests in Puerto Rico, or George Floyd protests in Ohio. Most of these feel like they could be collapsed into "protests took place in (number of cities), possibly including total numbers and duration. Thoughts on working to condense this information into something less sprawling and useful? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Category for nationalists of the United States
Inspiration for this comes from recent edits at the BLP for PA GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano. As I looked into the different categories being bandied about, I noticed that strangely has no subcat for. I'm unskilled doing category creation, and was thinking someone here might be interested in starting a place where we can add people, based on RSs of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

State Department Inspector General article
Hi, on February 23, 2022, I proposed a few updates to improve the quality of the Steve Linick article here that I think may be of interest to members of this project, especially since the Request Edits Queue seems to be pretty stalled. I can’t implement the requests myself since I have a conflict of interest as a personal connection and am aware that would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks.Skijackson (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act article
There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Respect for Marriage Act, polygamy, & WP:AN
There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Administrators' noticeboard, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Factions in the Democratic Party (United States)
Very sketchy article. For a few things:
 * ideology sections like Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) list examples of current people ostensibly in somewhat arbitrarily defined groups with no sources for most of them
 * there need to be some updates to mention that some people have left office -- I recognized Tulsi Gabbard among possibly a few others I don't know
 * a lot of examples of groups have confusing or unnecessary examples (and they are mostly unsourced): a few are the "Registered Democrats" section listing two DNC officials; "Younger voters" having for the House only Sara Jacobs, who isn't even the youngest member of the Democratic caucus (that's AOC); "Christian Americans" listing senators who don't seem to be particularly known for being Christian
 * all or most of the data for how groups voted is from exit polls, which are not as reliable as other options that at least for recent elections are available (e.g. validated voter surveys)
 * there are also a lot of broad generalizations such as a claim I removed that "Muslim Americans tend to be financially well off as many in the community are small businessmen and educated professionals".

Tldr this article makes a lot of unsourced claims and needs a huge overhaul DemonDays64 (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I also support fixing these issues. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also support it. Maybe the article is worth keeping, but only if there are major changes. Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It would not make sense to have Factions in the Republican Party (United States) but not the equivalent for the Democratic Party. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There is discussion for reworking the article at Talk:Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Altanner1991 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Marriage issues and neutral phrasing
Greetings, politics lovers! Since the Respect for Marriage Act will be broadening the definition of marriage to anything we want it to be, I'm thinking of how we can uniformly address marriage issues in articles, especially about political views.
 * "Traditional marriage" is a political term often used by conservatives, which tends to refer to "one-man, one-woman" complementarianism and additionally, child-bearing couples and permanent unions without divorce. Unfortunately not many supporters of Traditional Marriage can really agree on what it means.
 * "Same-sex marriage" is of course a specific and recent issue which is narrow in scope.
 * "Marriage equality" is a broadly inclusive political term, and I would argue that it's equivalent to "traditional marriage" in WP:POV political framing; they're both buzzwords or Shibboleths indicating support for a specific tapestry of beliefs about gender. "Marriage equality" as a neologism may also be as poorly-defined as "Traditional marriage" and subject to shifting connotations as time advances.


 * Now, generally in political articles we've been writing about how politicians oppose or support same-sex marriage. BUt in light of RFMA, I don't think that narrow scope suffices anymore. I also oppose the expansion of our use of the term "marriage equality" because we've already been down that road with pro-life and pro-choice and the overwhelming consensus is to use neither term due to its political implications.

RFC question: How should the political issue of "marriage" be framed in political articles? Elizium23 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Continue to frame marriage issues, and section headings, in terms of opposition/support for same-sex marriage?
 * 2) Refer neutrally to "Marriage" in section headings, and address nuances in prose?
 * 3) Turn to a duality of "traditional marriage" vs. "marriage equality" framing?
 * 4) None of the above: but avoid ideologically-framed terms in favor of something else?


 * This isn't USApedia; a piece of US legislation (which has not passed) doesn't really have anything to do with how we globally treat a topic. We have no reason, that I can think of, to change how we're currently covering the topic, which includes use of various terms as is contextually appropriate. I'm skeptical that "traditional marriage" should ever be used in Wikipedia's own voice, since it's begging the question.  "Traditional marriage" is only traditional to some people within specific traditions, and as a term it has a lot of loaded baggage with it (cf. WP:DTTC).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. "Traditional" doesn't seem NPOV. Andrevan @ 17:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC; RFCs are required to be neutrally worded, while saying that the Respect for Marriage Act ...will be broadening the definition of marriage to anything we want it to be is shockingly non-neutral. Likewise, arguing that option 2 is neutral in its description is, ironically, non-neutral. Beyond that, obviously we should continue to refer to support / opposition to same-sex marriage as appropriate, using those terms when the sources emphasize them - "same sex marriage" remains the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic and should remain the default for section headers absent some specific local reason to use other wording; the basic argument that the respect for marriage act... "broadens" this somehow is flatly false and has no basis whatsoever in fact, so no valid reason to change our practice has been presented. Strenuously oppose any use of traditional marriage in wikivoice per above objections - whose traditions are we talking about here? And strenuously oppose any attempt to avoid the words "same-sex marriage" in section headers when there are sourcesi indicating that it is a significant aspect of the topic. But the many basic flaws in this RFC mean that nothing useful can come out of it, so it should just be closed. --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , as the opening statement was non-neutral. Please read WP:RFC for guidance on how and when to use the RfC process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson
I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

3 interesting drafts
Draft:Will Boyd, Draft:Trudy Busch Valentine, Draft:Katrina Christiansen, need to source more biographical info and significant coverage in references Andre🚐 05:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Andy Ngo has an RFC
Andy Ngo has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Article WIP
I am seeking help to create Draft:2022 United States immigrant relocations. I think this can easily be it's own article, but it's a big undertaking that I cannot do alone. For now I've started it off with some stuff copy-pasted from the governors own articles, but obviously this will need to be reworked. -- Pokelova (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis FAR
I have nominated Jefferson Davis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert Rubin edit request
Hello WikiProject Politics, last month I posted a request on the article for former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, proposing to add some relevant information to the Early career section. I have a COI with Mr. Rubin as a subject, and as such will not make any direct edits myself. I have previously worked with a couple of other editors and have had a good working relationship with them, but out of respect for the time they've already put into the article, I thought I would reach out here for some additional perspective and to not unduly burden them. If someone here would be willing to review the suggested changes, I’d be grateful. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

GAR notice
Zachary Taylor has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the "Wi Spa controversy" Article Identify the Suspect by Name?
Please consider contributing to the "Should the Article Name the Suspect?" discussion at Talk:Wi Spa controversy. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Byron Brown
Byron Brown has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue One request
Hi, WikiProject Politics/American Politics members. I have posted a request to the Issue One Talk page that outlines a proposed update to the article's History section. I've also posted a request to the article's Organization section.

I have a conflict of interest as I work at Issue One, so my hope is that I can get an experienced editor to review what I've put together and then implement the changes if they seem like improvements. Any help (even just a small edit) or feedback you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Lia Thomas has an RFC
Lia Thomas, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News reliability RfC
Participants in this WikiProject may be interested in the RFC at WP:RSN on whether Fox News should be deprecated for politics. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald Trump
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Request to review for political advisor Jim Margolis
Would any editors here care to review a request to add some information to the article for Jim Margolis? The request is to add mention of his roles in the presidential campaigns for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, as well as a few other major campaigns he worked on. I'm making the request on behalf of Mr. Margolis, and have a conflict of interest, which is why I'm looking for editors without a COI to review. Thanks! Thomas GMMB (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
I suggested that the name of the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory be changed in response to recent non-conspiratorial allegations against Biden. In response, an editor simply removed the link to United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family from the article. The input of others at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

JFK Assassination Featured Article Candidacy
If anyone is interested, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy has been nominated for Featured Article promotion. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, ~ HAL  333  18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hakeem Jeffries
A user keeps listing Speaker Jeffries as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus despite him not being listed as a current member anywhere on their website or elsewhere 73.29.10.120 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the report, I'll keep an eye on the page. @73.29.10.120 Wispinn (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Adding categories for membership of individual congresses
Should there be categories for the membership of each individual U.S. Congress (i.e. Category:Members of the 1st United States Congress, Category:Members of the 2nd United States Congress etc., to Category:Members of the 118th United States Congress)?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Partially support - I think the category structure needs revision as "20th century" etc. is too broad. I'd be in favor of a standard that looks like this:
 * - For the 1900 - 2020, decades for discovery (eg. Members of the United States Congress (1950-1960) which would cover 5 congressional terms. Yes, there are some representatives who would be in more than one category in this case, but no more than a handful.
 * - For the current decade, a category for each Congress, which get rolled up into a decade category at the end of the decade.
 * - Prior to 1900, larger categories (eg. 25-50 year lengths).
 * Another alternative could be a timeline collection page/category wrapper. Not sure if there's a Wikipedia standard on that sort of contextual page. Wispinn (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do worry that this could create too much clutter, though. That's my main concern here. Historyday01 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Currently, members of the U.S. Congress are categorized in the "[x]-century American politicians" categories. Some of these categories have over 10,000 names in them. Branching out to subcategories based on each two-year Congressional meeting, of which we are currently in the 118th, could dramatically reduce the size of these categories. There is precedent for dividing by individual legislative session, as seen in the UK MP categories ("Category:UK MPs 2019–present"). Doing this would sort these politicians along more era-specific lines than the current century categories can permit: for example, right now, a member of Congress elected in the 1900s decade and one elected in the 1990s decade are both in the "Category:20th-century American politicians" category (current population: 14,967), when their lifespans probably did not even overlap.

On the other hand, because each Congress runs two years, a large number of categories would have to be added to the pages of long-serving members. For example, Hal Rogers, the current dean of the U.S. House, has served 42 years (since the 97th United States Congress), meaning at least 22 of these categories would be added to his article. In addition, a U.S. Senate term lasts six years, and so an article for a U.S. Senator who serves even one six-year term will have three categories added to their page, when it could be argued that these two-year terms are not defining for a Senate career.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It might benefit discovery, but it would probably clutter categories of a lot of articles because most members of congress serve multiple terms. I could maybe see a benefit with separating out Category:x-century Members of U.S. Congress as a new category in addition to "politicians", since politicians is broader and includes executives and local-level politicians.
 * The void century 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That could be a good compromise. I recently noticed there has been some effort to create century categories for legislators in Canada (i.e. Category:20th-century Canadian legislators is a subcat of Category:20th-century Canadian politicians). Having century categories specifically for members of the U.S. Congress (or legislators in general) could be a way forward here, if the consensus is that the clutter of creating categories for each two-year Congress would offset any benefits. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This would create a lot of category clutter, but I have no problem with a compromise. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a bit frustrated with this proposal mostly because the change to the "[x]-century American politicians" categories have happened from this topic, which is entitled "Adding categories for membership of individual congresses". Opposing doesn't seem appropriate given the topic heading is different from the changes being made, despite the edit summary pointing here. I really don't see how "Category:[x]-century American politicians" to "Category:[x]-century American legislators" does much to move any target, just a rename. --Engineerchange (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The goal at the core of this suggestion was to address the large size and broad scope of the "[x]-century American politicians" category. For the 19th, 20th, and 21st century categories, these categories have populations in the tens of thousands, and include everything from Senate leaders, to state governors, to one-term state legislators, to perennial candidates. The suggestion to create categories for individual congresses was to address this situation, but it was hard to see past the sheer amount of clutter this could create. The goal in creating the legislators category as it was suggested was to address the concern with clutter but go at least some way to diffuse the large target categories. Individuals who did not hold legislative offices, or whose political careers are not primarily notable for their legislative work, would not be moved. I will admit that this was not the precise outcome that I had envisioned when I first opened the RFC, but I concluded that's as far as the discussion was going to go, as it had been idle for a month by the time I had created the categories, and some level of support for a broader subcategory was shared. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In line with what everyone else is saying, I worry this could create too much clutter. But, the compromise of The void century that we have a "Category:x-century Members of U.S. Congress as a new category in addition to "politicians"" makes sense, as that could certainly help people.Historyday01 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have taken a broader view and created "X-century American legislators" categories, which definitely does expand the scope a bit more than Congress but does narrow things down a bit. It adds state legislators into these categories but excludes perennial candidates or people who served primarily/exclusively as executive branch officers. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In Oval Office, should "president's secretary" be wikified to Secretary_to_the_President_of_the_United_States?
Apokrif (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I would think so? Historyday01 (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It should be "Personal Secretary to the President of the United States" Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate
Rep. Dean Phillips has been in the news about running for president (MinnPost, New York Times, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post). His article does not say what he stands for and more about him for potential voters! I wouldn’t even know where to begin editing as I am not experienced and I have ailments that make it difficult to type for long periods. I was hoping to enlist the help of someone interested in the 2024 election for the article. Much thanks - BekLeed (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely take a look; would you mind putting together a short draft (a few paragraphs) for that section of the article based on your sources and I'll be happy to edit? Wispinn (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please also note Wikipedia isn't a place for campaign advertisements. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer - can you clarify what you're referring to here? This seems like a reasonable request to add more context to an existing sitting federal representative's article. Wispinn (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with adding to the article, but advertising their positions for an upcoming election is promotional and WP:NOT encyclopedic. Please make sure anything you add will still be relevant in several years. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, there surely should be more added about his positions... as there isn't much in the article at present, as compared to other legislators. Historyday01 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just leaving a note as I strike this that the above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a user who has form for going around to talk pages trying to get them to edit the Dean Phillips article. Letting you know in case it pops up again. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Ser! Disregarding this edit request then :) Wispinn (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Wally Adeyemo has an RFC
Wally Adeyemo has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the |discussion page. Thank you. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on Steve Hilton article
Hi editors, I am seeking opinions on this request to update a small section of the biography of political commentator Steve Hilton about the 2020 U.S. election. The Wikipedia article says "Hilton promoted Trump's false claims of large-scale fraud," but the source material does not support the claim that Hilton promoted Trump's views. It quotes him only as saying that "evidence of fraud or irregularity should be brought forward and the court should adjudicate." There is a difference between "promoting" fraud claims and saying that claims should be investigated, and the Wikipedia article should faithfully represent the source material per Verifiability. I have a conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of Steve Hilton, which is why I have not edited the article directly myself. Thank you for considering. SKflo (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating New York State section of Global Strategy Group article
Hello,

I'm an employee at Global Strategy Group, which does lots of polling, research, and strategic work for Democratic lawmakers. Last week, I made an edit request that proposes several updates to the GSG article's New York State section, which covers the firm's work for various New York Democrats, including Kathy Hochul and Kirsten Gillibrand. Would anyone here be interested in reviewing that request? I'll put a link here. It's a rather dense request, so I appreciate whoever takes the time to work through it. Please leave feedback, if you think certain aspects of it aren't up to par. I'm happy to collaborate with independent editors to further improve the changes I've put forward.

Thanks, ES at Global Strategy Group (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for McCarthyism
McCarthyism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

On organising the infoboxes of members of Congress
I'm opening a discussion on how to organise the infoboxes of long-running Congressmen and senators in the wake of editing to Dianne Feinstein's article. I've detected inconsistencies in the positions that are on top, and those that are at the bottom, committee names, and which positions are included in the infobox. This is especially problematic with senators, who can hold several committee chairmanships, ranking memberships, party offices (named differently if in the majority or minority) and constitutional offices (the president pro tempore).

Inconsistencies are worsened when editors with their own views on organisation, due to the lack of a coherent policy, pick and choose what to include and leave out. It reaches critical levels when vandalism occurs, risking incomplete reversions to the unvandalized version. To editors learning about members of Congress, inconsistencies make the infoboxes clumsy and detract from the Wikipedia experience. I believe we should form a coherent policy on what and what not to include.

The issue has several facets, which I am dividing into subsections. Many of these can apply to U.S. representatives as well, but seniority and long-term committee chairmanships are not as prevalent in the modern House of Representatives.

General organization
Long-term U.S. senators, as stated before, hold many positions during their tenure. For such cases, this risks overpopulating the infobox. Here are the options for how to order them, with article examples:


 * (Option 1a) Post-Senate offices > U.S. senator > constitutional offices + related (president pro tem emeritus) > Senate party leadership, NO committee positions > prior offices in chronological order: Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ted Stevens (R-AK). Personally favour this one.


 * (Option 1b) Post-Senate offices > U.S. senator > constitutional offices + related > Senate party leadership AND committee positions > prior offices in chronological order: Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ted Kennedy (D-MA)


 * (Option 2a) Post-Senate offices > Constitutional offices > U.S. senator > Senate party leadership, NO committee positions > prior offices in chronological order: Daniel Inouye (D-HI)


 * (Option 2b) Post-Senate offices > Constitutional offices > U.S. senator > Senate party leadership AND committee positions > prior offices in chronological order: Strom Thurmond (R-SC) (note that a related-to-constitutional office, pro tem emeritus, is listed below his U.S. Senate tenure), Max Baucus (D-MT)


 * (Option 3) Post-Senate offices > Constitutional offices > Senate party leadership AND committee positions > U.S. senator > prior offices in chronological order: John C. Stennis (D-MS), Milton Young (R-ND), Warren Magnuson (D-WA), Richard Russell Jr. (D-GA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT)


 * (Option 4) Post-Senate offices > U.S. senator > prior (non-committee) offices in chronological order: John L. McClellan (D-AR)

There are two other aspects to consider:
 * Incumbent U.S. senators and representatives with multiple chairmanships. Should we include their leadership of previous committees as well, as with Patty Murray (D-WA) and Bernie Sanders (Ind.-VT)?
 * Members of Congress with prior constitutional high office appointed to non-congressional offices after their tenure. Tom Foley (D-WA), who was the 49th speaker of the House and leader of the House Democratic Caucus until 1995, became President's Intelligence Advisory Board chair and then ambassador to Japan thereafter. Should we move his tenure as Speaker to the top of the infobox?

Committee chairmanships
On the topic of committee chairmanships, some long-term senators have led more than 3, even 4 committees, over multiple periods of their party's majority, like Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who chaired the Senate Finance Committee during 3 separate periods over 20 years. If we keep the committees in the infobox, we can collapse the area with committees, like with Grassley, John Kerry and Barbara Mikulski, which I carried over to Richard Shelby. To be collapsed, said senator or representative should have held 3 or more chairmanships, 2 or more if they held it over multiple separate terms.

If we use Option 1a or 2a above, we can also apply what we have with Joe Biden, with no committee chairmanships in the infobox but in an "Other offices" module at the bottom.

I also believe we should also keep the gender-neutral term "Chair", used on modern members of Congress but not on older ones.

Ranking memberships (and s-start)
I believe that, except for incumbent members of Congress, all ranking memberships should be removed from the infobox. The same applies to vice chairmanships of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee, which are essentially ranking memberships with a different name. Ranking members, especially earlier ones, have fewer secondary sources to confirm their existence.

Any mentions should be relegated to the S-start template at the bottom of the article.

Committee naming
Most members of Congress with committee leadership positions in the infobox use the short name of the committees. For example, instead of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, "Senate Agriculture Committee" is substituted, omitting "Nutrition, and Forestry".

Conversely, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is rarely shortened (Judd Gregg and Ted Kennedy are exceptions). Meanwhile, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is inconsistent, with Rand Paul and Rob Portman being short and Gary Peters and Joe Lieberman being long.

Occasionally, we have instances where the full name is added.

Conclusion
I hope I can gather feedback and consensus on what should be done in all these cases. Pinging, who were part of a debate on inclusion of Dianne Feinstein's committee positions in the infobox. Thank you! SuperWIKI (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC) SuperWIKI (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Responses
The purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. For the vast majority of senators, their committee assignments, constitutional roles, and ranking memberships are to go into an infobox. In news articles, those roles are not even mentioned unless they have direct relevance to the news at hand. Even so, in the recent news about Tommy Tuberville holding up military promotions, many articles didn't even bother to mention his chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee, even though it was to the situation (e.g. NBC, WaPo, LATimes). Not even does his own Wikipedia article mention his chairmanship, infobox or otherwise. It's clear that this information is barely if ever viewed as important. That's why I think Option 4 is the way to go. In special circumstances, obviously other items can be mentioned. For example, Patrick Leahy is known for being a longtime senator and so his role as president pro tempore is notable enough to be in the infobox. One editor argued on Diane Feinstein's article that her committee chairmanships are "fundamental to her history". Sure, which is why those roles are discussed in the body of her article; however, she will primarily be remembered as a senator, and just that—not as the chair of the Senate Narcotics Caucus from 2009 to 2015. Thrakkx (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a reason for that - Tuberville doesn't chair the Armed Services Committee, that's Jack Reed. He's only spent 2 years on the committee, barely enough time to gain seniority for the leadership, and he's in the minority party. He'd have to be a senior member of the committee in a GOP majority to be eligible. And the president pro tempore has almost always been the longest-serving senator of the majority party so the PPT has always been a longtime senator, so that can be included in any case + being a constitutionally-mandated office. Sorry about the nitpickiness. SuperWIKI (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that aside from personal data, the only items that should appear in infoboxes are things that can reasonably be called occupations as understood by the average reader. Being a senator is an occupation; being a general is an occupation; being on a senate committee isn't. Constitutional offices could go either way (many readers probably would want to know, at a glance, if someone was speaker of the house), but even that may lead to too much clutter. I think that most closely aligns with option 4. Einsof (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If so, shld we apply the Biden precedent, and place committee offices below the infobox in an "Other offices" module? I mean, if we apply option 4 we'll have to remove it from the Joe Biden article. Don't forget, we also have party leadership positions to consider - which do we include? Majority and Minority Leaders should be included, but whips, deputy whips, caucus secretaries, etc? What should be done?
 * We too have all the terminology issues to consider, if people in favour of maintaining committee positions weigh in. My post is quite hefty. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for opening the discussion and notifying me of it. While I don't work on U.S. articles, I tackle similar aspects covering Bolivian lawmakers. My personal view is that infoboxes are best served including only the most relevant political positions (president, vice president, speaker, senator/representative, secretary, etc.). For congressmen, positions within the legislature and individual parties' internal structure are best included in prose.
 * I've cited articles such as John McCain as examples. Positions that rotate frequently depending on majority/minority control of Congress – that otherwise clutter infoboxes – would do well to be moved to prose. I'm also partial to hiding the information in the infobox – as is done by different means on the articles for Richard Shelby and Joe Biden – but do have to note that the hidden function doesn't, well, function on mobile.
 * In other words, option 4. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Personally i believe we must have committee positions in the infobox they are imprortant in what order i dont care as long as for the Collapsed infobox section personally i dont like it and i dont think it should be used but i am open to alternatives Friendlyhistorian (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm preparing a lengthy response to all the above here, but I'll need some time to compose it. SuperWIKI (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to draw attention to a few test cases I experimented in my sandbox with a few years ago regarding this and the use of the suboffice infobox parameters for committee assignments. I've always disliked the extremely long infoboxes that some long serving officeholders seem to have. Connormah (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 4 largely to to infobox bloat and inconsistencies across subjects (this should also be the same for all officeholders, not just US Senators, FWIW). That said, there are a few positions in the US that should be noted - speaker of a chamber, president pro tempore - but beyond that, caucus and committee membership should be in the lede or in the body of the article as appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually thinking about this some more, I would put the order like this in the US:
 * President > Vice President > Pre or Post-Congress office (if higher in the order of precedence [so Governor > Cabinet]) > Senate constitutional office > Senator > House constitutional office > House of Representatives > State constitutional office > State Legislature (Senate > House) > Local office (arranged by dates of service) (if there is an existing page for that local office, unless that is what the subject is know for)
 * So, by using the order of precedence, we are consistent about which position occupies the top slot, which is usually what the person is most known for. This also avoids the Tom Foley post-Congress position and while there may be some bloat for individuals who end up being leaders of a legislative chamber, but for most readers, the most prominent facts are in the info box.
 * - Enos733 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still typing up my full response along with specimen infoboxes.
 * What are your thoughts on ambassadors who shifted to/from higher office? Easy to arrange for top people like Tom Foley and Walter Mondale, but not so much for people like Howard Baker, Mike Mansfield and Max Baucus.
 * Same goes for military officers who later attained high office like David Petraeus, Lloyd Austin, Jim Mattis and Eric Shinseki? I'm cautiously certain that military offices should be removed aside from service chiefs, commanding generals and JCS chairman (Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower, William J. Crowe as precedents). Petraeus, Mattis, John Abizaid and Austin are publicly known as CENTCOM commander (Petraeus especially) before gaining political or diplomatic office, so iffy on if combatant commands should be included on a case-by-case basis. Deputy four-star positions and below should be removed. SuperWIKI (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If your question is about where to put ambassadors in an infobox of politicians, ambassadors do not fit neatly in the order of precedence, as they are high when at their post, but low when back in the United States (with some exceptions). So, my instinct is that the top info-box item is the position the individual is most known for (with limited exceptions that can be justified, such as a former Speaker of the US House who serves a term in the Senate, or appointment to a Cabinet position in the US).
 * If your question is should the infoboxes of ambassadors or military leaders be streamlined, I would agree. - Enos733 (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

My response
To begin, I will restate the underlying issue. Including all of a U.S. senator's party and committee leadership positions in the infobox needlessly inflates the IB's size. That defeats its purpose, which is, and I quote, to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. I also complement Thrakkkx's point from the same WP:INFOBOX page - that an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored.

However, we can sharpen the tenor of this debate. Is the problem that:
 * the infobox is overbloated with positions (readability/conciseness), or...
 * that the aforementioned "puffery" contravenes WP:INFOBOX (Wiki policy)?

Based on prior responses, Connormah and Krisgabwoosh lean on the former, while Thrakkkx suggests the latter. The focus is significant - it determines whether a decision will affect the top 5% of longtime senators who shuffle between committee leadership positions (Grassley) or party positions that change based on seat gains and losses (Reid, McConnell), or every single senator who has held so much as two party/committee positions in the Senate.

To earlier comments, I counsel caution on going full-bore towards removing every top position within the Senate, as displayed by an exact implementation of Option 4. If we take the approach that the central problem is contravention of WP:INFOBOX, we may have to apply our consensus to all current and former senators uniformly, regardless of infobox size. Assuming we get that far, we'll have to deal with reversions when any one editor thinks a position is essential - whenever a news article highlights it, for example. Certain senators and senators who became presidents may fall into the domain of other Wiki communities (e.g. WikiProject U.S. History). Being too hasty risks reversion by unknowing or unwilling editors, and we'll have egg all over our face.

Despite WP:INFOBOX saying that articles should be able to stand alone without one, image and positional recognition in an infobox is helpful to the uninitiated user. It just so happens that the Senate's two most powerful figures, the Majority and Minority Leader, have titles reliant on control of the Senate, which splits terms and lengthens the infobox for every majority gain. I supplement Krisgabwoosh's comment on moving intra-Senate positions to the prose. Not every Senate floor leader is like John McCain and Bernie Sanders, able to thrive on name recognition alone. Within reason, leadership positions help distinguish high-ranking senators from lesser counterparts only identifiable on the infobox as "United States Senator". At the risk of subjectivity, I think Harry Reid is better remembered nationally for being the Senate leader who invoked the nuclear option for judicial nominees, and not for being Senator Harry Reid.

I disagree with Enos733's suggestion, if I am interpreting it correctly, to strictly adhere to the order of precedence. While it's a fashion today for House members to promote to governor of their state, former governors are also appointed to a President's cabinet. The Biden cabinet has three (Vilsack, Raimondo, Granholm), Trump's cabinet had three (Perdue, Perry, Haley), Obama's cabinet had three (Vilsack, Locke, Sebelius) and Bush 43's cabinet had eight (Ashcroft, Kempthorne, Johanns, Schafer, Thompson, Leavitt, Ridge). Being better known as governor or Cabinet member differs among individuals - Ashcroft is recognised for his post-9/11 contributions as Attorney General rather than as Missouri governor. The order of precedence only lists a governor above Cabinet members within their own state - anywhere else, Cabinet members rank above the governor. In cases like this, I believe it best to defer to chronology - recent offices first, then earlier ones below.

Recommendations
To summarise, here are the major changes that I think should be made. Please find infobox examples below


 * The president pro tempore should stay in the infobox above the U.S. senator office. For Grassley, his current offices should be over his PPT term until he retires. Honorary titles should be removed for senators, but the dean of the House (Dingell, Rogers, etc.), who, unlike the Senate dean, has the duty of swearing in the speaker, should remain. Charles Sumner would be among those affected, as Senate dean is prominently featured on his (sparse) infobox.


 * Senate Majority and Minority Leader should be combined into the umbrellas of the senator's party leadership position (Dem caucus chair, GOP conference leader), with majority-minority periods noted in Template:Efn. The use of Efn is to deter editors from re-instating "Majority" and "Minority Leader" as the terms are still be used in the infobox (such as with Lyndon B. Johnson). They should be placed above the office of senator to differentiate them from other senators without overbloating the infobox. If consensus permits, we can even shorten it to "Senate Democratic Leader" and "Senate Republican Leader". I am cautious however - that term is only used informally in press materials.


 * Senate Majority and Minority Whip should be combined into the umbrella offices of "Senate Democratic Whip" and "Senate Republican Whip" (Durbin, Thune) under similar rules as the above. This also applies to whips who rose to become floor leader (Johnson, Mansfield, Byrd, Reid, McConnell, etc.)
 * This is trickier for the House. Unlike the Senate, where "Democratic whip" and "Republican whip" is easily substituted in place of min-maj titles, the House doesn't have alternative titles when the Minority Leader moves up a level to Speaker in a new majority, with the Minority Whip becoming Majority Leader, so "Leader" and "Whip" become interchangeable. If everything below the Whip-level is removed, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and Kevin McCarthy's infoboxes are of tolerable length.


 * All party leadership positions below the floor leader and whip should be removed but retained in the s-box template, which can better display career progression. These positions are less historically-relevant and can theoretically be created or eliminated quickly. There is almost no inclusion of low-level positions in the infobox, like chief deputy whips (Merkley, Crapo).
 * This may be true for the Senate, but I'm uncertain about the House. Deputy whips, policy/steering committee chairs can easily be axed as their inclusion in the infobox is inconsistent anyway (Swalwell is a member of the Dem leadership, but no infobox mention of his position). However, the role of party chair, party vice chair and equally-ranked positions (i.e. Clyburn as Asst. Dem Leader) should be retained for incumbent officeholders (Aguilar, Lieu, Stefanik, Johnson).
 * The House GOP conference chair has become well-recognised by mainstream audiences after Liz Cheney was replaced by Elise Stefanik in 2021 over January 6, and both remain highly talked-about. I propose that both positions be retained for now, until the consensus ferments long enough that we can remove it from Cheney, a non-incumbent officeholder, without issues.


 * All committee chairmanships and ranking memberships, including incumbent ones, should be removed from the infobox but retained in the s-box template, with past and present chairmanships reflected in the "Committee assignments" section (Dianne Feinstein's section is a model example that includes former chairmanships). Given the controversy surrounding Bob Menendez and the elevation of Ben Cardin to Foreign Relations and Jeanne Shaheen to Small Business, I expect this will face many reversions so this point should feature heavily in the new consensus.

A clear consensus shouldn't be ascertained until enough of users well-acquainted with related articles (ideally not just those who are reverting Feinstein) have joined in. In my view, there's little point forming a consensus on a WikiProject page that seems to attract very little traffic, a consensus that could be misconstrued as a "deal in a smoke-filled room" could be constantly reverted by a silent majority.

While this consensus may apply to all members of Congress, the House is far less affected. With 435 members in total, long-time representatives are more likely to hold only one or two committee leadership positions during their House tenure (GOP turnover rules guarantee that on their end), and "partychiks" destined for leadership rise without having to hold too many high positions (Jeffries only served as Dem Policy and Communications Committee co-chair and Dem caucus chair before becoming leader).

Shorten chairmanships but leave party leadership & maj/minority
Hi all, I'm a fairly low-level British and US federal politics editor but have a thought on this. I'm of the view that we should shorten chairmanships and ranking memberships (like the one in Theresa May's infobox of her shadow portfolios. This way it would be shortened but still available to see what significant positions and committees the senator/representative was influential on.

Party leadership should be well advertised in my opinion. For example, Harry Reid is known for his role as a former Senate Majority Leader more so than his position as a Senator from Nevada. This leadership is important and often defines their legacy – it is therefore important if they are in majority/minority as to what work they carried out. I do feel these are important and should be included in the infobox in their entirety.

President pro tempore of the United States Senate is a constitutional position so should be included in all infoboxes of people who held it, just as the Speaker of the House is and should be. They are both in the line of succession so this is of particularly important interest. PPT emeritus is a significant position that has been actively created by the senate to recognise long serving members however it is negotiable as to how important it truly is.
 * Thanks for your response! Wondering what your position is on lower level party positions, especially the Majority and Minority Whips, House Majority Leader. SuperWIKI (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)