Talk:List of current United States senators/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC: shadow United States Senators

Question: Should we add shadow United States Senators?

Yes

Or

No96.36.68.29 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• NO DC is not a state so as per article one section three "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote" they are not senators.עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Definately NO. Unlike the non-voting DC Delegate who sits in the U.S. House, there is no equivalent "representation" in the U.S. Senate. The "shadow senator" is something that was made up by adherents of DC statehood as a political sattement but has not real basis in law. -- fdewaele, 27 February 2018, 19:18 CET.
• No – don't include per others. I don't see the importance for adding them. Corky 23:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• No Unlike the Delegates to the House of Representatives, the Shadow Senators have no officially recognized status in Congress. JTRH (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• No There is an article about Shadow congressperson members. That is where the information should be. Adding a link to that article in the see also section could serve the matter well.Horst59 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

shadow United States Senators

I think we should add the shadow United States Senators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_congressperson Thanks.96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

they're not Current members of the United States Senate why should they be added to this page? עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, they are not current members. What's your reasoning behind this? Corky 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

They are people too They should be added. It can go like this

so am I עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

shadow Senators

Shadow Senators are a Special group of Senators who are not officially sworn or seated by the U.S. Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Example: Note this is a Example I am not editing all of this so here we go.

	State	Portrait	Name	Born	Occupation(s)	Previous office(s)	Assumed office	Seat up
	Washington, D.C.		Mike Brown	(1953-08-05) August 5, 1953	N/A	N/A	January 3, 2007 (2007-01-03)	2018
			Doug Jones	(1954-05-04) May 4, 1954	Senate staffer Lawyer in private practice	U.S. Attorney	January 3, 2018 (2018-01-03)	2020
	Washington, D.C.	Zoraida Fonalledas	Mike Brown	(1953-08-05) August 5, 1953	N/A	N/A	January 3, 2007 (2007-01-03)	2018
			Doug Jones	(1954-05-04) May 4, 1954	Senate staffer Lawyer in private practice	U.S. Attorney	January 3, 2018 (2018-01-03)	2020

Here how we should put it and stuff and I was trying to put DC before and trying to Publish and I think Corky tiped is comment when I was finishing mine and so ya so I think they should be inclouded.

I still don't think they're needed. Are they similar to the Delegates in the House or what exactly is the role of a Shadow Senator? Corky 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Shadow Senators are U.S. Senators. Quoet: The voters of the District of Columbia elect two shadow U.S. Senators who are known as U.S. Senators by the District of Columbia, but who are not officially sworn or seated by the U.S. Senate. Shadow U.S. Senators were first elected in 1990.

The current shadow United States Senators from Washington, D.C. are Paul Strauss and Mike Brown.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_congressperson Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If they don't vote, I don't see why we should include them. Corky 23:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

They're basically protesting that D.C. isn't granted representation in the Senate, but they can't vote and I don't even think they're allowed on the Senate floor, indicating that they don't have much recognition and presumably shouldn't be on the page. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 17:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Occupation titles

I've been tinkering with the titles in the occupation column trying to add specificity where appropriate. In particular, since nearly all the senators are laywers of some sort, I wanted to specify what type of lawyer they are. Here's how I've been approaching it:

• Lawyer in private practice - a lawyer who has his own practice and no other lawyer partners/employees
• Lawyer in a law firm - lawyer who is an associate/partner in a firm with other lawyers
• Attorney - a lawyer who works in the public sector (specify jurisdiction: Municipal, State, U.S.)
• Corporate lawyer - a lawyer who is an employee for a type of business that doesn't provide legal services

I don't think it makes since to specify a specialty such as Constitutional law, Sports law, Family law, etc., nor does it make sense to indicate pro bono status as that could just mean that the guy couldn't find a paying job.

There also appears to be some variation in the list for CEO, VP, president, director and whether or not to specify if the business they worked for was a nonprofit or not. Nearly all nonprofits are corporaitons, so saying Corporate CEO would technically work for either one -- and these days nonprofits are just as competative and personally rewarding as for-profit businesses.

Also, I don't think company/organization names belong in the occupations column. We've never had them before and I don't think we should start now. However, government jurisdiction level is appropriate because the job can be completely different depending on the jurisdiction, e.g., U.S. District law clerk or Municipal attorney.

One more thing... I think the titles should be kept as short as possible to prevent wrapping. Sometimes it can't be avoided, but abbreviations are usually ok, e.g., VP, CEO, CBO, and the rest of the common C-suite titles. They can be linked to their article for those who don't know them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I politely disagree with this idea. Distinguishing between what kind of lawyer they are could be construed as showing favoritism to one party, or a region, or men v. women. Using the same word such as "lawyer" or "attorney" for everyone is neutral. I also think that adding "law clerk" is inappropriate, since that is something they did in their twenties, and might be seen as a way to diminish the individual. I am going to trim this under WP:BOLD and see what people think. Asburyparker (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest it looks much cleaner with the change. I also took out obviously 8inappropriate job titles like "janitor" and "ranch hand" Asburyparker (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Mark Warner 113th Congress photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Florida Senate

The Scott-Nelson race may go to a recount. Is it premature to call Scott the Senator-elect? JTRH (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the Senators-Elect section has been removed from the article. I think that is the best outcome here -- as noted in an edit summary making that change, these people are not "current members of the United States Senate" per the article title, and removing that section avoids wading into disputes about who exactly counts as senator-elect (e.g., in cases of recount, runoff, or lawsuits). New senators should be added when they take their seats in January. --EightYearBreak (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Sen. Martha McSally official Senate headshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting an administrator's help

I tried to move this article from List of current United States Senators (upper-case "S") to List of current United States senators (lower-case "s"). Wikipedia would not allow the change to go through. Does anyone know why? And how to correct that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Hi. This is happening because an article with a lower case S already exists. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 22:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• As noted, the target you want to move the page to exists as a redirect to this article. It would need to be deleted to make way for moving it, which only an administrator can do. However, you will first need to establish consensus for moving the page, as there may be reasons the page is where it is now. You can request a page move at WP:RM, or even just start discussing it on this page. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would support such a move. As an Administrator, I could also have moved the page but I agree with 331dot about first achieving consensus. Please {{ping}} me if/when you submit such a proposal. —GoldRingChip 12:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: I have no idea how to submit a proposal. That page (WP:RM) was too unwieldy to wade through. But, I will start a discussion below. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving the page due to article title

I believe that the article title should be moved from List of current United States Senators (upper-case "S") to List of current United States senators (lower-case "s"). In this instance, the word "senators" is not a proper noun, and thus should be lower-case "s". The title is analogous to saying (in sentence form): "This is a list of current United States senators." That sentence would not correctly be rendered as "This is a list of current United States Senators." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• (@JTRH, Corkythehornetfan, Joseph A. Spadaro, and 331dot: I've moved the discussion down from the previous section.) —GoldRingChip 18:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "United States Senators" is a formal title. The S should be capitalized in the title of the article. JTRH (talk)
    • But “senators” isn’t used as a proper noun here... Corky 13:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Agree, it's not proper noun in this usage. Here's how it should work:

"Senator Cory Booker said, in the United States Senate chamber, that other senators should eat more vegetables."

—GoldRingChip 15:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The use of capital S is consistent within Category:Lists_of_United_States_Senators. I suggest opening a formal WP:RM discussion for the whole set if you think they should all be moved. If that is approved for lists, then related categories could be speedily renamed afterwards.

I see that the RM route has been suggested already. Go on, have a go; it's not so difficult. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that that category you have cited should contain a lower-case "s" for "senators". However, if the category were titled Category:Lists_of_United_States_senators -- with a lower-case "s" -- then one might assume that the list refers to state senators, as opposed to federal senators. But, that's a different (although related) issue, altogether. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I was trying to point you to the other contents of the category, rather than the name of the category itself. Renaming categories is done via WP:CFD which can be daunting at first; as I said, leave that for later. Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves shows how to open a discussion to rename multiple lists (or other articles). – Fayenatic London 17:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. So, you are directing my attention not to the name of the category itself, but to the articles that are "categorized" under that category ... correct? In that case, also, there is inconsistency. Some of those articles in that category employ an upper-case "S", while some employ a lower-case "s". Pretty inconsistent. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm recommending that all the ones with upper-case Senators be included in the discussion. Well spotted, there is inconsistency, two already with lower-case. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Where is the best place for that discussion? I've tried several places. But, the pages are not heavily trafficked. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is as good as anywhere. – Fayenatic London 11:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as this would have a broad impact on many articles, I suggest continuing the conversation (or restarting it) at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —GoldRingChip 12:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But, that page (Wikipedia:Requested moves) is too complicated and I can't make heads or tails out of it. As I said in the discussion immediately above: I have no idea how to submit a proposal. That page (WP:RM) was too unwieldy to wade through. But, I will start a discussion below. And that is what started this discussion here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move these pages. Normally I'd say pages moved but it will take some time for me to do so. I closed the last two RM discussions similar to this. It's going to honestly take me some time to complete this, so I'll update this discussion once I've completed all the page moves. I'd honestly appreciate a hand from any admin or page mover capable. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Note - all pages below have been moved, and all pages in Category:Lists of United States Senators by state. I'll do Category:Lists of United States Senators by seniority in the morning if someone else hasn't got to it yet. I'd also recommend the category names be updated and the categories on each page be changed too. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, finally! All ~370 page moves (inc talk) have been  Done - I've also updated all articles to have Category:Lists of United States senators by seniority where relevant (via AWB) and updated the relevant template. Please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• List of current United States Senators → List of current United States senators
• List of appointed United States Senators → List of appointed United States senators
• List of African-American United States Senators → List of African-American United States senators
• Classes of United States Senators → Classes of United States senators
• List of longest-living United States Senators → List of longest-living United States senators
• List of living former United States Senators → List of living former United States senators
• List of United States Senators who switched parties → List of United States senators who switched parties
• and these articles...
• and these.

– Per Wikipedia's MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. They are capitalized... when a formal title for a specific entity... is not plural." This Wikipedia guideline reflects major style guides such as AP Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, which explicitly state that "senators" (plural) should always be lower case and that "senator" (singular) should be upper case only when preceding a senator's name. The Chicago Manual of Style gives the following examples: "the senator; the senator from New York; New York senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand". AP Stylebook gives the example: "The Arizona senator said he believes the president deserves another term."
Note: I hope that articles in Category:Lists of United States Senators by state and Category:Lists of United States Senators by seniority‎ can also be considered included in this proposal; listing all 168 of them here is rather impractical. I understand that this is a huge move proposal, but it is time that these articles are brought in line with basic orthography and real life academic usage. Some related articles are already correctly titled (e.g. List of United States senators expelled or censured, U.S. senator bibliography (congressional memoirs)).
See also the recently concluded multiple page move requests at Talk:List of presidents of the United States, Talk:List of presidents of Austria, Talk:List of presidents of Sri Lanka, Talk:List of chancellors of Germany, Talk:List of governors of New York, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support and speedy close This is just like the recent consensus achieved in the "List of presidents" nomination. This should really just be moved immediately as a technical request. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does seem like a no-brainer to me but it concerns nearly 180 articles. I would hate to see so much work undone just because a procedure was not followed. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support and speedy close per MOS:JOBTITLES, the RM at Talk:List of presidents of the United States, and similar recent RMs. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm surprised that the original request wasn't posted at WP:POLITICS or anything like that. I wasn't aware that the consensus was so hardline for it now. Weird.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:JOBTITLES, etc. CThomas³ (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

Kentucky Rand Paul list him as Ophthalmologist but under him is Louisiana Cassidy as Physician. This is wacky because of different styles of writing used. I propose to make it uniform.

First choice: list Rand Paul as Physician.

Second choice: list Rand Paul as Physician (Ophthalmologist) or Physician (specializing in Ophthalmology)

Senatoramius (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Georgia Senators

Since Perdue's term expired today (3 January 2021) and the winner of the runoff on 5 January 2021 won't be know yet, his seat is currently vacant. Should we update the chart for at least the next two days to reflect this? Negrong502 (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Successors of retiring senators

Pat Roberts, Tom Udall, Mike Enzi, and Lamar Alexander are no longer US Senators, as they have retired and their successors were elected and have been senators since today (3 January 2021). Can someone please update the list? Thanks, I am not sure how to do so myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negrong502 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign Negrong502 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

Remove Martha McSally from current senators, add Mark Kelly in her place, and change the map and party composition totals to reflect the change of one increase for Democrats and one decrease for Republicans. Rothkonapoleon21 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Already done from what I can see. PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a Democrat rally page. The changes go into affect in January (of which that has already been done).2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:B1B0:DB7C:4507:7CEF (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The actual List of Senstors

As of right now (3:36pm in UTC-4 timezone, on 12/1/2021) the actual list of Senators currently in office is not on the page.

I've checked the previous revisions and it was here earlier this day, but it appears somebody has removed. If someone sees this and is able to reinsert the missing section that is the topic of this page, please do. Declan Newton (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Warnock, not Kelly Loeffler, won the Georgia Senate race. It was Warnock. Also, Ossoff has won the second Georgia seat. Therefore, the count for Republicans is 50 and Democrats is 48 with 2 Independents. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/05/us/elections/results-georgia-runoffs.html 2601:444:8200:220:9982:4FE8:7EEF:9C62 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

True, however, neither Warnock nor Ossoff have been sworn in as senators yet.

Peninsulam amoenam (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This will be updated when the senators are sworn in. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark Kelly’s birthday is February 21, not February 20.

His Wikipedia page lists February 21 and his page on Congress.gov. I’d edit it myself but am unable to do so at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanPM86 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, @SeanPM86: thanks for letting us know, I've updated it to give the correct information according to congress.gov CX Zoom (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The map is incorrect, but I don't know how to change it.

The map of the US showing how the Senators are represented in each state still shows "1 Republican and 1 Vacant" in Georgia and "1 Democrat and 1 Vacant" in California. But, further down the page, it shows two Democrats for both Georgia and California, as they were sworn in today, I believe. Yes? Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The new senators will be sworn in at 4:30 PM Washington time, January 20. JTRH (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Zonker.in.geneva: It has since been updated after they were sworn in. CX Zoom (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Red/Purple/Blue map at top of the page

The coloured state map at the top of the page needs to be updated (ex. Florida and Nevada should no longer be purple), but I can not find out how to edit the map.

Does anyone know? Mikemikem (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This has now been changed, and I thank the editor who swiftly did so. One quibble, however: It looks like this map is in PNG format, while the version for the previous Senate was an SVG, which would presumably be preferable both for editing and rendering, I think. Should that be changed back?

 Done

While we're here, another suggestion: Since both current independents caucus with Democrats, would it be clearer to replace the green with a color closer to the Democratic blue (though still somewhat distinct)? Perhaps something like aqua (#00FFFF) or maybe even just a pure "blue" (#0000FF) if that would be distinct enough. My thinking is that it's sort of misleading to portray, for example, Vermont as having senators of two parties when both senators from that state are not only functionally Democrats but actually members of the Democratic leadership group. --EightYearBreak (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done

I agree, the colour should be changed to be more reflective of the independents caucusing with the Democrats Mikemikem (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. Maybe light blue for Sanders and King, with pink available if there's ever an I who caucuses with the Republicans. JTRH (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done

@Mikemikem: @EightYearBreak: @JTRH: Someone has made a new SVG file for the Senate composition in the current Congress which is updated to include the latest composition. The map has since been updated to change the Green colour to a lighter shade of blue for Sen. Sanders & Sen. King to show that they caucus with Democrats. Thanks for all of your concerns. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mikemikem, EightYearBreak, and CX Zoom: This is very good. Of course, it's hypothetically possible that there will be an independent or third-party senator who caucuses with the Republicans (as James Buckley did in the 1970's), and in that case, they should have a different color than Sanders and King (maybe pink?). JTRH (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@JTRH: yes the code of the map now mentions that (  this colour be used for Independents caucusing with Republicans) and (  for complete Independents) CX Zoom (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirection

I am confused by the redirection. US Senator redirects to United States Senate. But US Senators, U.S. Senators, United States Senator, US senators and United States Senators redirect to this list. Should all of above Senator acticles redirect to an identical one?

$g(x)={\frac {1}{\sigma {\sqrt {2\pi }}}}e^{-{\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {x-\mu }{\sigma }}\right)^{2}}$ 06:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@GriefCrow: I SUPPORT that US Senator and United States Senator be linked to this article. Both of them currently redirect to United States Senate. CX Zoom (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• They should all link to United States Senate, and not here. For instance, 1968 Democratic National Convention links US Senator, and 1960s links United States Senator. Even where the link here is ok, that'll only be temporarily ok (for some value of "temporary"). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

... and having taken a look at some of the incoming links, I'm going to go ahead and redirect them all. Richard Nixon's November 1962 press conference? Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988? Manhunt 2? List of nicknames used by George W. Bush? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

GriefCrow Thanks for identifying the mismatch. All now redirect to United States Senate.(ping CX Zoom). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hydronium Hydroxide Thanks for the clarification. $g(x)={\frac {1}{\sigma {\sqrt {2\pi }}}}e^{-{\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {x-\mu }{\sigma }}\right)^{2}}$ 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)