Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Horseshoe theory needs looking over

Thank you to anyone from this portal willing to help! – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 15:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Proportional representation article dispute

I have been trying to protect the Proportional representation article from some poorly informed changes, and in the end opened an adminstrator's noticeboard incident. But no admin seems interested in touching the problem, so the dispute resolution is not going anywhere. Perhaps members of the politics portal could do something/advise what I can now do. Otherwise the article will continue down the splippery slope as it and so many other political articles have in the past. BTW, the problem user has also corrupted the template Template:Electoral_systems which is used in some 75 articles, but no-one seems to have noticed yet. --BalCoder (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I dewikilinked "Mixed Systems" in the template, as there was no such article. Was this the corruption you were referring to? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is bigger: that link was changed from "Semi proportional representation", which does have an article and makes some sense in the context, and "Mixed member" (i.e.MMP) was moved there from PR - the guy has his teeth sunk into the idea that MMP is "mixed" not "PR". IMHO those changes should simply be reverted. If I revert he'll take umbrage. --BalCoder (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I restored that one line in a compromise fashion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Shaun King (activist)

[1] There is an RFC on the Shaun King page regarding the prominence we are giving of the recent Breitbart generated scandal. Input would be appreciated. Artw (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

The article is rapidly changing, for the ongoing discussion and dispute, see the talk page talk:Legalism (Chinese philosophy) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Coexistence

Currently, coexistence is a redirect to a communist topic. I find that rather odd, as wikt:coexistence should be significant enough for its own article, and not be a redirect. I noticed this because of a discussion at talk:Coexist (album). What do you guys think? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Cite act}}

Can template:Cite act be expanded to add an archival URL, and legislative session, and legislature ? Currently it doesn't seem to have any way to define which legislature the act was passed in, or which session -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You may find a better template in Category:United States law citation templates or Category:Law citation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That won't work for non-US jurisdictions; and the other category is a redlink, so I guess you mean Category:Law citation templates; It would be preferable to have the general-case template actually be usable, since it's there, and we don't have templates for every jurisdiction that has ever existed. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Centre for Equality and Inclusion - new article

I've created a new article on the organisation, Centre for Equality and Inclusion.

Centre for Equality and Inclusion is a non-governmental organisation based in India that works towards female empowerment and women's rights.

If you'd like to help with research or to improve the article's quality, source suggestions would be appreciated, at Talk:Centre for Equality and Inclusion.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Shahnawaz Choudhary

Dear political experts: This article has a large "office holder" infobox. Are all of these redlinked placenames appropriate for the infobox? The infobox is longer than the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Note - unless "youth congresses" has a different meaning in India than in the United States, this person is not an "officeholder" in the sense of holding elected public office. His offices are within political parties and other organizations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Numbering of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

 Request withdrawn

The numbering in Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and Template:US House Speakers is inconsistent in how it counts those who served in non-consecutive periods.

The United States House of Representatives's web site lists speakers who serve multiple terms separately, listing Frederick Muhlenberg is both the 1st and 3rd Speaker and Jonathan Dayton is the 4th, not the 3rd.

I recommend we follow suit.

@GoodDay:, if my recommendation is adopted, a lot of your recent work will need to be undone. I appreciate your good-faith work, but we need to discuss whether to count non-consecutive periods of service separately, as is done with the Presidency, or not first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Update: I misread this page. See amended reason for going with this numbering system below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

News reports have Paul Ryan as the 54th Speaker. Thus my changes. If this WikiProject decides otherwise? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I did not see Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Numbering until after I opened this discussion. I have cross-linked this discussion to that one. I have also posted a notice at Template talk:US House Speakers#Numbering pointing back to here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've also changed the numbering to the Template. Again, if the WikiProject decide to go with the other numbering scheme? I won't protest it. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Updated rationale My original rationale for changing the numbering - which I had drafted then erased after seeing and misreading the US House of Representatives web page - was to be consistent with how terms of the United States President are counted. Of course, we should go with reliable sources. I was unaware of now news reports counted that office. It would be interesting - even essential - that we try to find out how history has counted the "position number" of past Speakers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The numbering of state governors is even more hair-pulling. Some states use the individual scheme, while others use the tenure of office scheme. PS: I must admit, the possibilty that the numbering is different for the speakership compared to the presidency, is odd, as both are federal government positions. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

TBH, I don't believe there is an official numbering of the Speakers of the House. If not, our best course may be to go numberless. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I did the homework I should have done earlier, and reliable sources going way back to the 19th century tend to follow the same format found in Smull's Legislative Hand Book and Manual of the State of Pennsylvania (1922)

I am therefore withdrawing my original request. The idea to go numberless is a good one - please start a new discussion here or on the article's talk page. And yes, it is odd that the numbering for the Presidency would be different. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave the numberless proposal in your hands. :) GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Lebanon

Can someone clarify what the situation is regarding Women's suffrage in Lebanon? There is a discussion here: Talk:Women's_suffrage#Lebanon. 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C2F4 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"Republic of Egypt"

The usage and primary topic of Republic of Egypt is under discussion, see Talk:Republic of Egypt (1953–58) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Egypt listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Republic of Egypt. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

I have nominated Belarusian Republican Youth Union 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. DrKay (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Peoples' Democratic Party"

The usage of "Peoples' Democratic Party" is under discussion, see Talk:Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that International law, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Naming format for constitutions

Currently we have a seemingly random collection of naming formats for historical constitutions, including:

• 1824 Constitution of Mexico
• Bolivian Constitution of 1967
• Constitution of Kenya (1963)
• 1993–2010 Constitution of Kyrgyzstan

The current spread seems to be roughly split between the first two (I can only find four examples of the third option, and the last seems to be the only example).

I think it would be a good idea to have a consistent naming format (which we can add to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)). Personally, I think the first option is probably the best, as it's the simplest in terms of text. However, having just stumbled on the Kyrgyz example whilst writing this, I think it also has some merit (although I guess constitutions are generally known by the year they were promulgated in). Avoiding using the second example would also help avoid disagreements of demonyms that occasionally degenerate into move wars.

If we can reach a consensus on this, we can add it to the naming guideline. Thoughts please! Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• We should follow modern history books and other modern reliable sources whenever possible. In some cases, modern reliable sources use multiple names. In those cases, we should look for a "tie-breaker" to decide or if it's truly a "tie," just pick one. We should provide re-directs and/or disambiguation pages for names commonly used by other reliable sources (including historical ones), and we probably should have a default "house naming convention" for titles where reliable sources "are all over the map" or which do not make good page titles ("North Elbonia's recently adopted constitution", "the constitution recently adopted by North Elbonia," etc.). For pages where the name is "not" what it would be under the "house naming convention," redirects, disambiguation pages, and hat-notes can be used so people can find what they are looking for if they are typing in names based on the "house naming convention." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• My personal preference for a "house naming convention" would be Constitution of Country (year) or, where there is more than one such constitution in a given year, Constitution of Country (month year) or Constitution of Country (date). For example, United States Constitution would remain at that page title but redirects would be created at Constitution of the United States (1787), Constitution of The United States (1787), Constitution of the United States (1789), and Constitution of The United States (1789) (4 redirect to account for capitalization and ambiguity over whether to use the year it was signed-sealed-and-delivered for ratification or the year it went into effect). I would not object to further redirects that used "[t][T]he United States of America" instead of "[t][T]he United States" in the title. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

US Congressional term end dates

Dear all,

there is a disagreement in the helpdesk whether congressional terms end on the 3th or 4th of March [2] [3]. Since it involves alot of articles this could be damaging and needs to be discussed on a central location prior to any further editing. I have asked all parties to continue the discussion on this page and stop editing until concensus is reached.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify... the disagreement is about when Congressional terms ended prior to the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933. Billmckern has changed the date from March 4 to March 3. Czoal (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone or several someones has been changing Wikipedia articles on US Senators and Congressman who served before 1933 to indicate that their terms ended on March 4.

In fact, Congressional terms ended on March 3. Presidential terms ended on March 4 because the US Constitution mandated an oath taking at noon on March 4. As a result, cabinet appointments also ended on March 4.

Terms for members of the US House and Senate ended on March 3 because there was no requirement for a noon oath taking on March 4.

I've been making corrections when possible, but I could use some help because there are so many March 4 errors. Is there a way to get these corrections made and get other contributors to stop making edits which incorrectly state March 4 as the end date?

You can verify that Congressional terms on March 3 with these references:

Here; Here; Here; Here; Here; Here; Here; Here; Here; and Here; Here.

Additional examples: Congressional bio for John Tyler; Congressional bio for Abraham Lincoln; Congressional bio for James K. Polk; Congressional bio for Benjamin Harrison; Congressional bio for William McKinley.

Billmckern (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Billmckern: I don't think it is wise to do any more editing on the topic until the dispute is resolved. For example, on the help desk, User:Czoal pointed out that

"I'm pretty sure there is a big misunderstanding on his part about what the end date means. March 4 means that the term ended when the clock struck midnight on the night of the 3rd/morning of the 4th. So it means the terms were to March 4, not through March 4. The only difference with the president is that his term ended 12 hours later, at noon. I've looked at many Wikipedia articles about the U.S. Congress from the 1st Congress forward and they all say that terms back then ended on March 4 (see the term duration in the infoboxes)."

Which means that you will have to resolve that before you go on doing the editing. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's my point -- presidential terms ended on March 4 because the Constitution mandated a noon oath taking on the 4th of March. There was no such requirement for members of Congress, so their terms ended on March 3. If one looks at the bios for the members of the United States Congress, they indicate that terms ended on March 3.

Billmckern (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Billmckern: What Czoal said was that the terms end at exactly 12 am on the 4th. Since 00:00 is usually defined as the following day, this means that the terms end on 4 March. Personally, I am not very much inclined in this discussion since I don't have much interest in it, so probably you could discuss with other involved users by pinging them. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"The First Congress opened on March 4, 1789, and soon decided that congressional terms would begin and end on that date each year."[4] I believe this is a misunderstanding by Billmckern based on semantics. Prior to the ratification of the twentieth amendment, congressional terms began and ended on the same day, March 4, which was deemed the official day of transition from one Congress to the next.[5][6][7] Thousands of political-junkie Wikipedia editors over many years have included March 4 as the end date in thousands of articles for a reason. Therefore, I think it is highly problematic that one editor comes along many years later and unilaterally starts changing that date in hundreds of articles without first seeking consensus from the community. Therefore, until this matter is resolved, I think the editor should be instructed to self-revert all those changes. Czoal (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

One additonal point to Billmckern. While I have no doubt your intentions were very good, it shocks me that you failed to start a proper discussion and achieve consensus, and instead chose to unilaterally make that date change in - so far - hundreds of articles. Obviously, if the March 4 date was included in such a massive number of articles and has been there for many years, there must've been a good reason for it. Czoal (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal -- I don't "misunderstand" anything. If anyone -- especially you, apparently -- would take them time to read the references I provided -- which you clearly haven't -- you'd see that Congressional terms ended on March 3. Most Congressional bios on Wikipedia contained the correct date of March 3 for the end of the term. The articles for each Congress -- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. -- also contain the March 3 end date. Someone else changed the Congressional bios to the incorrect March 4 date. Instead of copping an attitude with me, maybe you ought to be directing your condescending tone and attitude towards the contributors who are wrong on this point.

Just for good measure, here are even more references to verify that Congressional terms ended on March 3, not March 4. This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one ("From March 4, 1789 to March 3, 1793; Embracing the First Term of the Administration of General Washington"); This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; This one; and This one.

Billmckern (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Congressmen are Congressmen through the entire day March 3. This means their terms end at the end of the day March 3- midnight is the last minute of the day, not the first. At no specific time on March 3 does their term end, but retiring Congressmen are no longer in office on the 4th. If you aren't in office, your service cannot end because it's already over. John F Jamele (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, Billmckern, the only condescension (and anger) in this discussion is from you to me. I think anyone can read the comments and determine who's actually "copping an attitude". Regardless, my primary concern is not even about the date but rather about the way you went about making the change. No one should ever make a potentially contentious edit to dozens or hundreds of articles without first discussing it with the community and reaching consensus. The date is only a secondary issue to me. On that, I happen to believe you're incorrect. A statement like, "The First Congress opened on March 4, 1789, and soon decided that congressional terms would begin and end on that date each year."[8] is quite clear. They determined that terms would start and end on the same day. One term ended at midnight on the 3rd/4th and the next one began. Czoal (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Midnight on the 3rd/4th." There is midnight March 3, and midnight March 4, and they are 24 hours apart. If Congressional service ends on March 4, what is the hour at which it ends? If your answer is "midnight," you are telling us that you believe retiring Congressmen continued to serve for 12 hours after the new President was sworn in, or until the end of March 4. I think it's pretty obvious that you mean it ends on Midnight March 3, at which point you have no argument. John F Jamele (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you just look at the references I provided? Here's another one -- when members of Congress including Jefferson Davis, argued at different times in the 1800s that Congress had stayed in session after midnight of March 3/March 4, and so could not take official actions, the presiding officers decided that the "legislative day" of March 3 could extend until noon on March 4, when the new president was sworn in. All acts taken after midnight of March 3/March 4 and before noon on March 4 were signed with the date of March 3. Why would the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate have to pretend on March 4 that it was still March 3 unless they knew that Congress adjourned and terms ended on March 3? They wouldn't -- they'd do that only if they knew that their terms ended on March 3. You can read about that precedent here.

Billmckern (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Billmckern, are you also posting in this discussion as John F Jamele, an editor who had 4 edits before showing up here? I noticed you made this edit in which you removed the Jamele comments (which were then restored by Jamele). Czoal (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not posting as someone else. I accidentally deleted John's comments during an edit conflict while trying to add a comment of my own. He's a friend of mine who is also a US history teacher, so he decided to weigh in after he and I conversed about this topic and I asked him for his expert opinion.

Billmckern (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I came to this from the help desk. I don't know what consensus will eventually decide on the underlying content issue, and while I care about US politics and political history, I don't munch care about the difference between march 3rd and 4th. Off hand the sources cited by Billmckern look plausible, but perhaps the one cited by Czoal will prove more persuasive. But while it does seem reasonable to ask that further changes stop while the matter is discussed, it does not seem reasonable to require reverts while the discussion is in progress, only to possibly need re-reverts if Billmckern's view obtains consensus. This is particularly true if Billmckern is accurate is stating that he effectively reverted a recent change to a minority of such articles. (I haven't verified this.) Still it might be wise in future to post at a relevant discussion page before engaging in such mass edits. I also notice that Czoal doesn't seem to have yet addressed the multiple sources cited by Billmckern. And sockpuppet accusations really need to be supported by significant evidence, and should normally be made at an SPI, not a project talk page. Otherwise they violate WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSION. Please keep this discussion WP:CIVIL and focused on the issues. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 01:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please note that I did not accuse him of being a sockpuppet. I simply asked him if he was posting under both names based on the inappropriate removal of that content. And based on Billmckern's answer, my question for him now is: Was the conversation with your friend in which he decided to weigh in done privately (off of Wikipedia)? Czoal (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, John and I conversed off Wikipedia so I could obtain a second opinion. But I didn't ask him to comment -- he decided to do that himself.

Billmckern (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have degrees in US Government and US History and have taught Advanced Placement classes in both for more than twenty years. I was asked to weigh in with my opinion on this subject. Frankly, I am surprised that such a heated debate could take place over such an easily-researchable topic.

I would also like to question how the number of edits I am credited with could be in any way germane to the topic. I am quite certain that at one point both Czoal and Billmckern had only four to their credit as well. Nor is it relevant if Billmckern called, emailed, faxed or telegraphed me to ask me to weigh in. The only point is that there is a dispute here that seems to be based on nothing other than a refusal to acknowledge evidence presented to support one side, and an attempt to distract through baseless accusations.John F Jamele (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

John, the reason your 4-edit total was germane is that you somehow found your way to this discussion with no prior involvement in the topic and it happened just prior to Billmckern deleting your comment. It was very suspicious. And, as we now know, for good reason. While I appreciate your honesty, what you two did is inappropriate at the least and perhaps even sanctionable. WP:MEAT, WP:CANVASS, and WP:STEALTH come to mind. And what's also concerning is that although Bill said "I didn't ask him to comment", your follow-up, "I was asked to weigh in with my opinion on this subject", clearly says otherwise. Therfore, John, it is actually very relevant not only that you were asked to weigh in, but where the request was made (off of Wikipedia). Czoal (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill asked my opinion and I gave it, and then decided to post it here, figuring it would make no sense to have Bill merely cite me as a source. If you want to make a conspiracy out of that, that is your right and your issue. You seem to think that there is something wildly inappropriate about asking an authority for information- which might explain why you are so wrong on this issue, and why your refuse to acknowledge that, instead looking for reasons to feel persecuted. John F Jamele (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you want to make out a conspiracy because I said John commented on his own and he said "I was asked to weigh in with my opinion on this subject." I don't think those two comments are mutually exclusive -- me asking him what he thinks and him deciding to post what he thinks are two different things. But more to the point, it doesn't help resolve the issue that the pre-1933 Congressional term end dates are incorrect on some Wikipedia pages.

Billmckern (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, my primary concern is the process by which this change was unilaterally made to dozens or hundreds of articles. That's not how we do things on Wikipedia. When someone wants to make a change like that to many, many articles, the process is to discuss it first with the community and reach a consensus. That's how we prevent edit wars and discussions like this one. The date is secondary to me, as I've made clear. I want the correct information in the articles. Period. But I want it done properly. With regard to your conspiracy comment, I have just explained to you, via links to the relevant policies and guidelines, that what you two did is not permitted. Otherwise, we'd have chaos on this project, with thousands of editors contacting their friends privately to join a discussion and agree with whatever they say. John, I don't doubt your background for a moment, but we have thousands of editors who are "experts" on various topics. However, except for a relative few, they are just as anonymous as all the IP editors. In other words, you are an IP too. Czoal (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's very simple, Bill. You said, "I didn't ask him to comment"[9] John said, "I was asked to weigh in with my opinion on this subject."[10] Czoal (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that Bill asked me for my take on the subject, and then I decided to post that position here. I don't see how I could have been more straightforward, but you seem determined to twist this into a conspiracy-- and distract from the topic. John F Jamele (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Recall that I'm the one that brought this issue up. I emailed the editors to ask how to solve it. I followed their suggestion to take it to the help desk. I asked for a second opinion from a subject matter expert. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. This isn't an issue of opinion -- the correct answer can be known. Congressional biography page. Check the official Congressional bios for anyone who served before 1933. They all say the terms ended on March 3. If the US House and US Senate historians don't know their own institutions, then I don't know who does.

Billmckern (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No one (online) told you to unilaterally make that change to a huge number of articles. And even if someone did, common sense should tell anyone that it's wrong to change something potentially contentious to dozens or hundreds of articles without talking it out first and getting a consensus on what should be done. And, as admin DES pointed out above, you've provided no proof that someone recently changed March 3 to March 4 in a "minority of articles". And now you're revealing that you "emailed the editors to ask how to solve it". Again, covert discussions like that are not allowed. They must be transparent so that all editors have access to the what's being said. We don't rush into making significant or widespread changes. We have discussions first and seek consensus. Someone who has edited for six years should know that. Czoal (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What kind of conspiracy theorist are you? What could possibly be wrong with asking the people who run this site how to get assistance to fix something I observed to be incorrect, and then following their advice? Or do you think I need to contact you personally every time I want to make an edit or solve a problem?

How about helping me fix this instead of seeing conspiracies where none exist?

Billmckern (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You still don't get it. It's not about a conspiracy. It's about the the fact that you violated multiple policies and guidelines in your handling of this entire matter and refuse to even acknowledge it. Violations that have earned other editors sanctions. You may not like the fact that these rules exist, but that's irrelevant. You need to get consensus for that change to decide what exactly it is that needs fixed, March 3 or March 4. And consensus does not include support from any personal friends that you invite here. You don't need to contact me about anything; you need to contact the community, transparently, to properly discuss that matter. You have yet to even provide the proof that DES asked about. Czoal (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Czoal, I think you are a bit over the top here. As the original drafter of WP:Process is Important, I yield to none in my fondness for proper process properly carried out. But we do have the "email this user" function for a reason, even if I generally prefer that discussions be on-wiki whenever possible. For the matter of that, the help desk has an official IRC channel over which people get real-time assistance, and which is not logged at all. Email at least leaves a record. So there is no rule forbidding off-wiki discussion of such matters. Moreover, at the help desk, very much on-wiki, in this edit, TheRedPenOfDoom suggested multiple if not mass UNDOs, and in [11] this edit Nyttend discussed the mechanics and didn't object to the suggestion, and then in this edit Arjayay joined the thread, also without objecting to the suggestion. It may be that none of them fully contemplated the exact edits that were made, but it would have been reasonable for Billmckern to take that thread as instruction by multiple experienced editors to make exactly the changes that he did. I didn't say that Billmckern had "provided no proof that someone recently changed March 3 to March 4" I said that I had not (yet) verified that in the article histories. Those will provide all the proof needed, I just haven't had time to look yet, if it matters. I don't see what has happened here as improper canvassing, meat puppetry, or any similar policy violation.

All that said, it is true that Wikipedia runs much more on the authority of sources than the expert qualifications of editors. Citing ones degree or professional experience isn't of much value, because generally we can't verify it, and even if we could the expertise of the authors of the sources is what counts, as per WP:V.

So now, can we leave conduct and return to content, please? Czoal, have you looked at the sources offered above by Billmckern? Do you think them unreliable, or do you think Billmckern has somehow misinterpreted them? DES ^(talk) 04:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - My intentions at the Help Desk were to provide advice on how one might quickly/easily make a lot of edits to disparate set of pages . If I implied that I approved that it was appropriate to do so in this case, that was not my intention, but I can see how it might have been interpreted that way. I am not familiar with these details and had not looked at the sourcing to determine my opinion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Resume content discussions

I've discovered that this March 3/March 4 debate has been going on for many years. And Billmckern was aware of it, which he failed to mention. In searching for past discussions on WP about this topic, I came across a discussion on his talk page about it from about a year ago.[12] Here's a couple other discussion on other pages:[13][14] Congressional Quarterly is very clear that the First Congress established terms to begin and end on the same day, March 4.[15] Just because Congress may have stopped working on March 3 doesn't mean the term didn't end on March 4. This discussion should be taking place at WikiProject U.S. Congress, where there would be far more interest and knowledge on this specific issue. Czoal (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the lead of Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The Twentieth Amendment (Amendment XX) to the United States Constitution moved the beginning and ending of the terms of the President and Vice President from March 4 to January 20, and of members of Congress from March 4 to January 3".[16]
There it is: the beginning and ending of the terms for members of Congress were moved from March 4 to January 3. That's straight from the U.S. Constitution. Czoal (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. If you read the whole article, you will see that prior to the 20th amendment, the Constitution was silent on the starting and ending dates of the terms of House and Senate members. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Update: I modified Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution to change "moved the beginning and ending of the terms" to "moved the beginning of the terms". Discuss my change at Talk:Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution if you want to. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not, davidwr. I have reverted your edit.[17] That took a lot of guts to make an edit to that article as a means of supporting your argument here, and trying to discredit my comment just above. It's already been stated that no edits should be made to that date, or anything related to it, in any article until this issue is resolved. Czoal (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I missed the part about "anything related" and for that I apologize. I'll undo my most recent edits and put the page back the way it was. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm amazed that you would make that change just minutes after I quoted that precise content here. And all while this contentious debate is taking place. Czoal (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Until you posted it, I had no reason to realize that the edit needed to be made. I still think the edit needs to be made, but, as you point out, it can wait until the underlying issue is resolved. If it is resolved in favor of "ending March 3" then IMHO the 20th-ammendment article's lead would look cleaner without the word "ending" there at all, but that's discussion for a future date and for the talk page of that article, not for here and now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look at the infobox of every Congress from the 1st through the 72nd, the final Congress before the Twentieth Amendment was ratified.
All 72 of them say term "Duration: March 4, (year) – March 4, (year)". Czoal (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Czoal, are you seriously citing the content of one Wikipedia article, and the infoboxs of others, as sources in a content discussion here? It might do as an example of past practice on Wikipedia, but we really should stick to reliable sources here, I think. DES ^(talk) 12:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm making a point. As you well know, I already provided reliable sources above, indicating that the 1st Congress ruled that terms would start and end on the same date. Obviously, if many editors over many years put the March 4 date in all 72 Congress articles, and a huge numbers others, there is a reason for it. If there was any prior consensus on this matter, then show it. And Kraxler closing this RfC after one day of discussion is obviously inappropriate and invalid; especially considering the fact that he's been heavily involved in this debate for years as a March 3 proponent. He even had the nerve to cite essays he and another editor wrote, and an email from someone in Congress, as legitimate reasons to close this discussion. Sorry, but no. So I would ask him the same question: Are you seriously citing your own essay and an email from someone? This RfC should stay open per process for as long as it needs to so that others have a chance to comment. Kraxler's personal opinion that it's been discussed too many times since 2006 without consensus and therefore will go nowhere is completely irrelevant and beside the point. If this matter has been debated numerous times for nearly decade, then obviously there's a huge disagreement. Czoal (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: earlier discussion by Czoal, the text of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not support the article introduction, --- the Amendment only addresses the new beginnings, not the old endings. I am reluctant to take a Congressional Quarterly source over the U.S. Congressional publication. For instance, see the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, at [18]: Pre-1933 U.S. Senator William C. Rives of Virginia "again elected to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of John Tyler and served from March 4, 1836, to March 3, 1839;” and again, "subsequently reelected as a Whig on January 18, 1841, for the term beginning March 4, 1839, and served until March 3, 1845"

The WP List of United States Senators from Virginia uses the March 3 end date for its entry for William C. Rives. His WP biography Infobox at William Cabell Rives has both March 3 and March 4 end dates of service. It may be that the WP template uses March 4 as the default for beginning and end dates for terms prior to the 20th Amendment, but WP cannot be used as a reliable source for WP. It seems to me that the Congress should be the deciding voice in the debate among sources, so the end date for a full pre-1933 term of office should be March 3 of odd numbered years prior to the implementation of the 20th Amendment.

I would suggest a consult with Office of the Historian: history@mail.house.gov. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• This issue has been discussed numerous times before, since 2006, at different venues. The Congressional Biographical Directory says that the term ends on March 3. Please note that there is a difference between tenures for President/Vice President and Congress members. Please note also that there is a difference between the legal term and the actual session dates. Please read User talk:Kraxler#Essay on congressional term expiration and User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Sep#Term expiration March 3 vs 4 and User talk:GoodDay/Archive 32#March 3 vs 4. The Congress article infoboxes say March 4 because they were in session in some years until the early morning of March 4 although the term had expired already. Present most common usage is term end in bios saying March 3 (legislative day), session end in Congress articles saying March 4 (calendar day), following the advice by the Office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives expressed in an e-mail copied at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States/Archive 1#Term expiration (March 3 vs. March 4). (However, it is in some cases factually incorrect: if March 3 was a Sunday, the session ended on March 2, as clearly visible in the House journals.) Kraxler (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps it's time to "give up" and find an "out of the box" solution: - Perhaps its time to recognize that different reliable sources say different things regarding the last calendar day a Congressman was a Congressman and if we follow Wikipedia policies and procedures we will be spinning our wheels for a long, long time, spending who-knows-how-many man-hours on this instead of spending them improving the encyclopedia in other ways. Besides, even if reliable sources all agreed on March 3 as the official "end of term," the issue would still be compounded by the "officially sanctioned legal fiction" that occurs when a legislative day where the "old" Congress was still in session extends more than 1 second past 11:59:59PM on March 3. Would Wikipedia go with the legal fiction or would they go with the actual time of final adjournment, assuming of course that a reliable source reported that the "Old Congress" didn't adjourn until March 4?

So, how about we stop fighting and replace the phrase "term ended on March [3 or 4]" with "Succeeded by [replacement] on March 4" for the vast majority of cases where the successor took office on March 4 as scheduled, and handle the few exceptions (such as "office became vacant on March 4") individually. Yes, it's a bit awkward but at least its factual correctness won't be as widely disputed as the factual correctness of "term ended on March 3" or "term ended on March 4." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that Congress never met on March 4. So, your proposal is awkward and unhelpful. The House journals always end on March 3 (or March 2, if march 3 was a Sunday), the extra hours of finishing business were at times reported in newspapers, but never officially acknowledged (Guess why?) I think you should redefine "reliable source" here. Where are the diffs of the purported controversy? I think it happened at a single article (about the 20th Amendment). Where are "reliable sources" that say that the term ended on March 4, as opposed to that Congress was still in session in the early morning of March 4? I'd like to see them. Did you read the cited discussions above? Or is it TL;DR? Kraxler (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(straying a bit off-topic) Actually, it looks like the House, the Senate, or both did convene on March 4 at least a few times before 1933. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a WP:RS but the guy who created the web page is an academic and I doubt he would deliberately put up false information. His (see bottom of page for his name/contact info) sources (which he did not specifically list on that page but which may be elsewhere on that web site) are very likely either reliable primary or reliable secondary sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The new House never convened on March 4, as you can see in the atble, the Senate usually held a special session without the outgoing members, and admitting those new senators who had been sitting in the last House or were otherwise present in DC. Sometimes, the rump Senate was able, with a different majority, to confirm presidential appointments... The same table shows that the House adjourned on March 3 and sometimes on March 2, as pointed out already (it's all mentioned in the previous discussions, exhaustively) Kraxler (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Davidwr, I really like your thinking in terms of trying to find an amicable resolution, contrary to Kraxler's rather uncivil opinion that it is "awkward and unhelpful". Kraxler, you asked Davidwr for a reliable source that says the term ended on March 4. How about this one? Also Kraxler, where is your proof for your claim that Congress "never met on March 4"? And even if that were true, which apparently it is not, that doesn't at all mean the term didn't end on March 4. It only means they didn't meet or do any work on March 4. Someone can have a March 4 retirement date from their job, but use the final week to take unused vacation time. So even though they're not in the office or doing any work on March 4, it's still their end date. In terms of Congress, the 1st Congress clearly stated that the term would start and end on the same date. It doesn't matter if they stopped working a day or two early. Czoal (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A possibly-reliable non-primary source that explicitly states that the issue wasn't clear even in the 19th century: March 4: A forgotten huge day in American history (staff/uncredited, National Constitution Center, March 4, 2013) is an interesting read.

It says in part:

"The 3rd Congress started meeting on December 1, but March 4 was reserved for a special role in every Congress. It was picked as the last day of its two-year session."

implying "March 4" is the official end date.

It also says in part:

"Another point of contention was the exact time on March 4 that a congressional session ended.

A spat in 1851 started by a senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis, led to a Senate resolution marking 11:59 a.m. on March 4 as the end of a Congress and 12 p.m. as the start of a new Congress. (The House, as a habit, didn’t meet on March 4 at the time.)

Before then, some people considered the stroke of Midnight on March 3 as the end of Congress’s two-year term."

implying that the choice of "March 3" or "March 4" depends on what the generally held view at the time of what day "midnight" was - back then many people considered "noon" as neither AM nor PM, so I wouldn't be surprised if "midnight" was considered "neither today nor tomorrow".

In short, for us to pick one date over the other when reliable sources acknowledge that the debate long predates Wikipedia without acknowledging the longstanding historical dispute is probably not the best choice. Either don't pick a date for the end of Congressional terms, or pick the one with strongest historical arguments to support it but explicitly acknowledge that other reliable sources give a different date.

Here are some more sources that use one date or the other (some of them may have already been listed in this or similar discussions):

• United States Government Serial Set, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1913, p.146 ("March 3")
• Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-2005: The Continental Congress, September 5, 1774, to October 21, 1788, and the Congress of the United States, from the First Through the One Hundred Eighth Congresses, March 4, 1789, to January 3, 2005, Inclusive, Government Printing Office, 2005, p. 1438 ("March 3")
• Historical Highlights - The Controversial Final Adjournment of the 23rd Congress - March 03, 1835–March 04, 1835 - House members argue that whether they had the authority to vote - even to adjourn - once the calendar flipped over to March 4, even though the "prescribed start of the new Congress [was] at noontime later that day".

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you're starting to get to the core of the question. The term end is nowhere codified. The meeting of the 1st Congress was scheduled for March 4. That's undisputed. The term was fixed at two years by codifying that there shouyld be electuions every two years. That's as far as the undisputed facts go. What follows are interpretations of what means "two years long, starting on March 4" - It has been presumed that, since a calendar year starts on January 1 and ends on December 31 (it's also undisputed that a calendar year does not end on January 1 of the next year), that a term that begins on March 4 would end on March 3. A practical problem arose when legislative business increased much and partisanship delayed proceedings very much, that on March 3 there was much unfinished business and the session went all night on until everything was voted upon, sometimes until daylight on March 4. Since the new House was not to meet until December, there was nobody knocking on the door to eject the sitting members, and since common sense required to finish the business, nobody contested the early morning votes. Fact is that there is absolutely no legal primary source (US Constitution, statutes) that say explicitly that the term ends either on March 4 or March 3 or on any other date. This omission was remedied only after the 1935 amendment. The Congressional Biographical Directory, during more than hundred years stated march 3 as the term end in all bios. The House journals give March 3 as the last day of session, independent of whether the session extended until after midnight or not, many times it didn't. Resolutions passed in the middle of the 19th century stated one thing or the other, but resolutions are not binding on anyone except those present. (Ask a lawyer about the difference between a constitutional amendment and a resolution.) So, this discussion has been running in circles since 2006, because most of the debaters can not distinguish term from session, a new example you can see right here bu Czoal who mixes them up again. That's not a good basis for discussion. I propose to just follow the contemporary sources, and not any OR published in 1999 by people who apparently didn't read them. Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That, and when you combine the likely fact (if true - I'm not claiming it is) that since the start of the new terms wasn't initially (or ever?) codified as being at midnight the morning of March 4, and the idea that it was commonly understood as being noon March 4 as early as 1835, and the common-sense idea that "the old term doesn't expire until the new term is scheduled to start", you can make a case that the old Congressmen were still Congressmen until the stroke of noon on the 4th even if both houses adjourned on or before March 3. Of course, you can also use other evidence to argue that no, the term started at the stroke of midnight the morning of March 4th and the previous term ended one instant earlier - at the end of the last second of the last minute of the last hour of March 3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Different interpretations are possible here, but if you (a wiki editor) do the interpretation then it is WP:OR, forbidden under Wikipedia policy. We need to follow the sources. So why does the GPO say that the term ended on March 3? The Historical Highlights blog also says "During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the biennial start date of a new Congress was March 4, with the final session ending on March 3." and then explains how the session was getting longer, over the objections of many congressmen. Why did they object? Based on what? Think about it. Kraxler (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, oh, I know why politicians objected to a final session that was getting longer each year; because they're humans and hate long board meetings! Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Great information provided by Davidwr from the National Constitution Center's Constitution Daily, which clearly verifies and explains the March 4 end date. It includes these statements:

• "The Confederation Congress, which operated under the Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution) picked March 4, 1789, as the day it handed off power to the new constitutional government."
• "March 4 was reserved for a special role in every Congress. It was picked as the last day of its two-year session."
• "defeated Congress members would still need to serve in session from December 1 to March 4 of the following year".
• "Another point of contention was the exact time on March 4 that a congressional session ended. A spat in 1851 started by a senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis, led to a Senate resolution marking 11:59 a.m. on March 4 as the end of a Congress and 12 p.m. as the start of a new Congress. (The House, as a habit, didn’t meet on March 4 at the time.)"
• "The drama over March 4 every year ended when the 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933....The previous congressional and presidential terms ended just before the new terms began."
• Czoal (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats a blog. Please read WP:RS. Kraxler (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:RfC It says "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page." On which article's talk page was this discussed before this RfC started? Kraxler (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A blog ... run by the National Constitution Center and its staff. Hence, it is a reliable source unless you're saying the NCC is not a reliable source itself. Also, "it is always helpful", not "it is required" is a big distinction that needs to be made. It helps to have had prior discussion before using RfC but it is not required. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler, it's quite rich that you would question the appropriateness of this forum at this late stage, after all your lengthy contributions to the discussion. But what's much more perplexing is that fact that you know full well that the March3/March 4 debate has been going on, without consensus, for nearly a decade. You said so yourself. So, yes, it has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed. Therefore, this RfC is actually way past due. And for the record, WP:RFC alludes to discussing at the "related talk page", but there is no one article to which this issue applies; it affects hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. Further, you and I discussed this RfC on my talk page following your highly inappropriate attempt to close it yesterday. Interestingly, you didn't say one word about objecting to this forum. All you did was falsely assert that there was a consensus here and insist that the reopen was invalid. Finally, as Drcrazy pointed out to you, the very highly regarded National Constitution Center is indeed a reliable source, with Constitutional Daily having full editorial oversight. Czoal (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I just asked a question, and I expect a simple answer. As far as I can gather from your rant, the answer is that the issue has not been debated at any article's talk page immediately prior to this RfC. Ok. The initial statement says that this issue concerns thousands of pages. This has been indeed debated since 2006, without a clear consensus. However nobody has yet attempted to halt indefinitely all editing of this point until consensus is reached. I think such a unilateral moratorium is contrary to WP:CONSENSUS in cases where there is no consensus. Besides, a discussion that affects thousands of articles can not be held by five users. You, Czoal, arrived here a month ago, and I strongly suggest to get a little knowledge on policy and guidelines before jumping head-on into such complicated debates. Kraxler (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a damn what you expect or suggest. However, it is amusing coming from the edtior who attempted a completely bogus and highly problematic close of this RfC yesterday, and has misinterpreted or misstated multiple policies and guidelines. You complain on one side about only "five users" participating, yet on the other try to rush-close the discussion after a day to prevent more participation. For the record, it's actually nine participants so far, not five. And, no, there is absolutely nothing complicated about this debate. Czoal (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC) 05:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In United States Senate: Historical Statistics, 1789-1992, Volume 4 Senator Robert Byrd and the other authors make clear that terms ended on March 3.

I think it's also pretty clear from several references that when the Senate used to meet in March to confirm cabinet members and other appointees, it was the newly-elected Senators who were included, not those whose terms had expired. See: This one; This one; This one (Note that newly-elected Vice President Chester A. Arthur is presiding as newly-elected President Garfield's cabinet is confirmed, indicating that the votes were taken by the new Congress, not the one whose session had expired.); and This one.

It seems to me that indicating that individual terms ended on March 3, while sessions ended on March 3 or 4, depending on the circumstances, is reasonable, given the way the actual events unfolded at the end of Congressional sessions and the previously provided advice from the staff at the U.S. Congress, which was mentioned earlier.

Billmckern (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: If I was involved in a previous discussion about this topic, I've forgotten about it. My interests are U.S. military and political history. I spend a lot of time on bios and images for Army officers and political figures including members of Congress, so trying to get the end dates of Congressional terms right is an item of interest for me, but if I've discussed it before, I don't remember having done so.

Billmckern (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing complicated about the debate if there is a distinction between term and session. The Senate is a continuing body, so its sessions need not end coincident to term end dates. The Senate in session persists with a quorum regardless of term end dates of the one-third seats with term end dates (class 1, 2 or 3). The Congressional Biographical Directory notes term end dates as March 3 then January 3. National Constitutional Center references to sessions seems irrelevant. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Official sources

Did the Congressional Record, its predecessor publications, or the House or Senate journals ever record the end date of terms (keeping in mind the above distinction between terms and sessions)? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the Congressional Record is reflected in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which is searchable online at [19], and uses end term dates of March 3 and January 3, except in cases of resignation, expulsion or death. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If it does, it only does some of the time - there is no mention of it at all in James W. Grimes's entry. [20]

Grimes resigned in mid-term. "...served from March 4, 1859, until December 6, 1869, when he resigned due to ill health..."

Billmckern (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not my point - I picked a "random" member of Congress (the first non-current Iowa Congressman who came to mind) to test the assertion that the Biographical Directory was based on the Congressional Record - and the Congressional Record was not one of the sources, suggesting that the Directory does not actually rely on the Record - or at least that it does not do so consistently. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is whether the Congressional biographies show an end date of March 3 for terms that ended before 1933. Except for resignation, death or expulsion, they do. You picked one who resigned, so of course it doesn't show March 3. If you picked those whose terms ended as scheduled, they would in fact show March 3. For instance, the bio of James B. Howell, who replaced Grimes, says his term ended on March 3, 1871. The bio for William B. Allison of Iowa, who served in the House at the same time Grimes was in the Senate, has a term end date of March 3, 1871.

Billmckern (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Billmckern: That is not, in fact, the question at all. The question is whether the official records - listed at the start of the section - discuss the end date. TheVirginiaHistorian attempted to answer this question by referring to his/her proffered source, but it is not at all clear that that source got its information from the official records, as I pointed out above. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The question was whether terms ended on March 3. You would never know the answer to that question from looking at the Grimes Congressional bio, because Grimes resigned partway through a term.

Billmckern (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is clear. The Congressional Biographical Directory takes its dates from law, assembled by the historical staff of the House and Senate. Congressional Biographical Directory 2005 online [21]

p. 44 The Constitution Art.I sec. 4 provided that Congress shall meet on the first Monday in December unless they shall by law appoint a different day. By law Congress first met on March 4, 1789. “Up to and including May 20, 1820, eighteen acts were passed providing for the meeting of Congress on other days of the year. Since that year Congress met regularly on the first Monday in December until January 1934.” at the 20th Amendment, fixing the 3d day of January, unless a different day be appointed by law.

For instance, in the Second Congress, the First Session was from October 24, 1791 to May 8, 1792; the Second Session was from November 5, 1792 to March 2, 1793. There was a Special Session of the Senate on March 4, 1791, “for one day only”. The Third Congress, dated from March 4, 1793 to March 3, 1795, ended its Second Session on March 3, 1795, with a Special Session of the Senate March 4, 1793, “for one day only”. p.49. The Twenty-Second Congress, dated March 4, 1831 to March 3, 1833, has a First Session of December 5, 1831 to July 16, 1832, and a Second Session of December 3, 1832 to March 2, 1833. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet ... that source tends to cite directly only to other biographies or encyclopedias, not to the official sources I was inquiring about. Do you have a specific citation to those records? My question was about what those particular records said, not what some third party (staff or not) said. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Look at the original journals, both House and Senate recorded adjournment on March 3. See here, fopr example, the site has all House and Senate journals. Kraxler (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Legal fictions

The legal fiction that a particular "day" can be extended past midnight by the simple expedient of recessing instead of adjourning overnight is one that persists to this day in at least some legislatures. I don't know if Congress ever relied on it, though I suspect it did. If such reliance affected the end date of the term, I would suggest a format such as

"March x <small>(official)</small><br />March x <small>(actual)</small>"

for those cases. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - additional evidence

This issue of March 3 vs. March 4 has been a perennial discussion topic, as witness the fact that I have been party to a number of discussions of it since I first began editing in 2006. In my mind, the very clear answer is that the terms ended at 12:00 noon on March 4. Below I have copied evidence and documentation from two earlier threads on the topic, the first from 2006 and the second from 2012:

There is pretty clear documentary evidence that until the Twentieth Amendment was passed in the 1930's, presidential and congressional terms expired at noon on March 4th. Nor was this just a theoretical issue; the outgoing Congress and President routinely exercised their powers on the morning of March 4th in odd-numbered years.

The lame-duck congressional session that began in December of each even-numbered year frequently went down to the wire and saw Congress meeting on the morning of March 4. I have here in my office the Congressional Record that includes March 4, 1917 (I am doing an article on some legislation that passed in the 64th Congress, 2d session and found an ex-library set of the Record for that session cheap on Amazon). The Senate was in session on the morning of March 4, 1917 -- even though it was a Sunday -- continuing in session from the previous day (there was a filibuster in progress concerning arming of U.S. merchant ships traveling to Europe). The Senate continued in session right until 12:00 noon, when the proceedings read:

"The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. The hour of 12 o'clock noon having arrived, under the Constitution of the United States I now declare the Senate of the United States adjourned sine die." (54 Cong. Rec. 5020)

The House was also in session on March 4, 1917, until 12 noon, when the proceedings read:

"The SPEAKER. The hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, under the Constitution I declare the House in the Sixty-fourth Congress adjourned sine die. God bless you all. [Applause.]" (54 Cong. Rec. 5033)

Meanwhile, the President was signing bills into law, also on the morning of March 4 (see 54 Cong. Rec. 5032). This is not unique to 1917; a Google search for "Act of March 4" (use the quotes) will turn up numerous statutes that became law on March 4 of a given odd-numbered year (e.g., Act of March 4, 1923), and certainly were signed on the last day of the outgoing congress rather than the first day of the incoming one.

I was in a library the other day and verified that the same thing happened in many other Congresses. See also the additional example with a 19th-century link that another user I've been discussing this posted at User_talk:DLJessup. The evidence I posted persuaded this user who was previously as committed to the March 3rd date as anyone.

By way of additional detail, there is a room in the Capitol building off the Senate chamber called the President's Room, which was formerly used for presidential bill signings, particularly in the last days of the session through the morning of March 4. See for example here. This custom continued right through the 1930's as is reflected in this interesting article from Time from 1933.

---

I know this has been discussed many times; I believe I was the first to raise the issue, back in 2006, and I think at the time the consensus was for March 4, but obviously this affects a large number of articles so I am sure I've missed multiple discussions over the past couple of years as I've become involved in other wiki-things. So I definitely would appreciate any links you can provide to more recent discussions.

I understand the distinction you are drawing between "term" and "session," but I am not sure that it's relevant. Suppose that in a given Congress, they were efficient and finished all the the business early and adjourned sine die on February 1. The Members' terms still had to end at a given date and time, and the given date and time was at noon on March 4th. Conversely, the term of new Members always began on March 4th, even though the new Congress often didn't convene on that date.

To me, the relevant question is simply: "If you walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 10:00 a.m. on March 4 of an odd-numbered year when Congress was in session, would the Members participating be those of the outgoing Congress or the incoming Congress"? The answer is, the outgoing Congress. And it simply doesn't make sense to me that a Member would be permitted to participate in the House or Senate session on the morning of March 4th, if his or her term had expired on March 3rd.

(The usual response to this point is to draw the distinction between calendar days and legislative days—but this too has always struck me as irrelevant, because terms aren't measured by legislative days. If a given Congress adjourned sine die on March 1st, but the Senate was still on the legislative day of February 15th, we wouldn't report the Senators' terms as having expired on February 15 any more than we would report them as having expired on March 1.)

The principal source of confusion on this issue, I believe, is the Congressional Biographical Directory, which for reasons that remain utterly obscure reports the expiration dates as March 3. This has now been recognized as an error by the Congressional Historians' Offices, and I have a communication from a staff member indicating that over time the dates are being corrected in the Directory, but I acknowledge that this private communication is not a reliable source in and of itself.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I don't have the time or inclination to make a huge wiki-deal of this, but for what it is worth, I am still convinced that all the listings of "March 3" convey inaccurate information, albeit trivially so.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

An interesting argument, and congratulations for your eloquence. But. There are several things that remain problematic;

• Although you say that you understand the distinction between "term" and "session" your description still confuses the "legal" term with the actual real-life adjournment date/hour. Your evidence is one instance of 1917. But what happened in 1791? If we shall consider what happened on March 4 at 10 a.m. then we would need to have different end dates stated in any bio/congress according to the actual time and date of adjournment. We could do that, provided somebody does the verification, and digs up sources, for all 70+ congresses affected.
• You suppose that the congressional historians have been mistakenly recorded a wrong end date for 140 years, and that these sources should be thrown out because of a private communication of the present incumbent who changed his mind after the Wikipedia discussions started. Well, we can't do that. Historical research has been like that in certain places, where historical fact has been adapted and rewritten to reflect the then current views some, but Wikipedia is considered a free place.

I'll have another look at some sources and will elaborate further later on, but in the meanwhile you could answer this question: Why did many senators and representatives object to continue the session beyond midnight, for example as shown here, based on what? And as practicing lawyer you certainly know the difference between the Constituional text and how to enact an amendment thereto, and a resolution passed ad hoc making any opportunistic claims. Or, could you point to link in the US Constituion (as of 1851) that said "the term expires at noon on March 4"? That would be helpful.

An I'd like to state that I'm not trying to push any POV here. I wasn't born on March 3 and have no other vested interest in favoring the day. Show me that March 4 is correct and I'll accept it with good grace. In the meanwhile I prefer to follow the authentic historical sources, as prescribed by WP:V: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Kraxler (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

See here the Continental Congress fixing the date of the first meeting of the U.S. Congress on "the first Wednesday in March next" without giving a time of day. This is the only written authority for the beginning of the legal term of congressmen and senators, which was adopted for the president and vice president too. Kraxler (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Newyorkbrad. The evidence you bring shows that 1917 appears is conclusively decided as having the term ending at noon on March 4, 1917. It is strongly suggestive that the same date applied for at least a decade or two before and for 1919-1933. Earlier evidence in this thread [22] strongly suggests that the end-time of the previous session was still strongly disputed in 1835, with some Congressmen claiming a midnight-the-evening-of-the-3rd time and others claiming a later time. Something happened in the intervening decades. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Still confusion between a Congressional session and the the terms which comprise them, versus a Representative's term of office ending on March 3 or January 3. The Senate is a continuing body. It does not end on any day, it can have a session until the House begins another which it does sometime on March 4, as in the 1917 citation, or January 4. The President's term is likewise continuous across midterm Congresses. It seems to me that the Marshall Court held something to do with John Adams "midnight" judicial appointments, but I do not recall any application here. @Newyorkbrad:, was the Congressional Biographical Directory staff kind enough to furnish their source for the change; was it changes in Congressional sessions (second or third term of a session) or Representatives terms of office, which we are concerned with here for info boxes? Perhaps you could favor us with a copy-paste of the text in a {{quotation|text}} box. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Limited removal of 1 line of Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution from moratorium

At least one editor interprets the moratorium on making related edits as applying to an edit like this one which changed the opening sentence from

The Twentieth Amendment (Amendment XX) to the United States Constitution moved the beginning and ending of the terms of the President and Vice President from March 4 to January 20, and of members of Congress from March 4 to January 3.

to

The Twentieth Amendment (Amendment XX) to the United States Constitution moved the beginning of the terms of the President and Vice President from March 4 to January 20, and of members of Congress from March 4 to January 3.

That editor who objects to changing things in the middle of the discussion is technically correct (the best kind of correct). However, at least 3 editors, including myself, have attempted to make similar edits since this discussion started ([23], [24], and [25]). Rather than invoke WP:IAR (which IMHO is borderline-justified in this situation) or getting into a discussion over whether WP:3RR applies (arguments can be made both ways), I am asking everyone here to agree to remove that sentence from the moratorium so discussion of that sentence can happen separately on the article's talk page even as the larger discussion here continues. Of course, if the larger discussion here ends first, that may "speedy-close" the second discussion.

Disclaimer: I made the first of those 3 edits and I got into a mini-edit-war with the editor who is defending the moratorium (which, as I said earlier, is the technically correct thing to do). I also made that edit in a way that itself was disruptive (I've already apologized for that). In short, I'm both strongly in favor of removing the moratorium, I will strongly favor a particular outcome on the discussion page if the moratorium is lifted, and I'm too "involved" to even pretend to be neutral.

I expect this side-proposal to run for about a week, unless either the main discussion closes first, this side-discussion closes early, or it is "close" and discussion is ongoing at the 7-day mark. If all or almost all participants in the main discussion chime in and discussion dies down for a day or two after that, then it can be closed early. A snow-close would also be a good reason to do an early close. I would expect any followup discussion on the article's talk page to run a similar length of time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In light of the dispute, the article's Introduction should not refer to March 3 or 4. With that in mind, the article's Introduction should read:

The Twentieth Amendment (Amendment XX) to the United States Constitution established the beginning of the terms of the President and Vice President as January 20, and of members of Congress as January 3.

SMP0328. (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

SMP0328., I hope you repeat this suggestion on the article's talk page once the community decides to lift the moratorium, if they decide to lift it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:davidwr if consensus for a change is established here, no further discussion is needed on the article's talk page to implement it. A notice on the talk page there directs users to opine here. That's it. Kraxler (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support wording proposed by User:SMP0328. Kraxler (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obviously, no content relating to this March 3/4 term-end dispute should be changed in any article until this RfC is settled. Czoal (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - While I would typically agree with Czoal's position of "leave it alone until consensus is reached to change it", this proposal is simply removing currently contentious and ambiguous information until the dispute is resolved. Once the dispute is resolved, then we put the resolved information back into the articles and go case-by-case for end dates.

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I edited the article's Introduction to match my proposed wording. I did this based on what I believe is a consensus supporting that wording. Czoal has reverted my edit, claiming there is no such consensus. Apparently, he believes his lone opposing voice is sufficient to prevent there from being a consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity. I would revert Czoal, but that would risk heading into a 3RR situation. How should we proceed? SMP0328. (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I still think the end dates of Congressional terms was March 3. That said, I think whatever we decide, we need to be consistent. If the answer turns out to be March 4, as indicated on the page for the 20th Amendment, then I think we ought to make it March 4 on every page that includes an end date for a term -- every Congressman, every Senator, every list of seat holders by state for Senators or district for Congressmen, and so on.

Billmckern (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Request formal closure of this thread, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Requests for closure. Kraxler (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Congressional Biographical Directory

The Congressional Biographical Directory is clear and authoritative, it takes its dates from law, assembled by the historical staff of the House and Senate. See the Congressional Biographical Directory 2005 online [26]

p. 44 The Constitution Art.I sec. 4 provided that Congress shall meet on the first Monday in December unless they shall by law appoint a different day. By law Congress first met on March 4, 1789. “Up to and including May 20, 1820, eighteen acts were passed providing for the meeting of Congress on other days of the year. Since that year Congress met regularly on the first Monday in December until January 1934.” at the 20th Amendment, fixing the 3d day of January, unless a different day be appointed by law.

For instance, in the Second Congress, the First Session was from October 24, 1791 to May 8, 1792; the Second Session was from November 5, 1792 to March 2, 1793. There was a Special Session of the Senate on March 4, 1791, “for one day only”. The Third Congress, dated from March 4, 1793 to March 3, 1795, ended its Second Session on March 3, 1795, with a Special Session of the Senate March 4, 1793, “for one day only”. p.49. The Twenty-Second Congress, dated March 4, 1831 to March 3, 1833, has a First Session of December 5, 1831 to July 16, 1832, and a Second Session of December 3, 1832 to March 2, 1833.

In the individual biographies of Members serving, the term end dates are March 3 and January 3, moving the hour of termination from midnight to noon. We have only instances of Senate Special Session "for one day only" to extend a Congress to March 4, the Senate having a quorum of Members with six year terms overlapping any March 3. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Congressional Biographical Directory and the House journals always recorded March 3 (March 2 if March 3 was a Sunday) as the last day of the session. That's undisputed. We know that the session was finished after midnight on some occasions, over the objections of members who knew that their term had expired. The fact that the date changed at midnight, and the actual time of day, were never officially acknowledged by the official journals. These are the facts. To appear now and ask Wikipedia users to decide whether the term ended on March 3 or March 4 is presenting a false dilemma, and WP:OR is forbidden by policy. Just follow the sources. And, in case the session went on after midnight (which is proven in three or four cases, the others are not even sourced, but only supposed), and if there is a reliable source which says so, it may be mentioned in the text about that Congress. The silence by Newyorkbrad, not answering my question ("Why did many senators and representatives object to continue the session beyond midnight, based on what?") is not only telling, it's shouting out loud. Kraxler (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

March 3/4

FWIW, we should go with March 4. Anyways, my experiences in this dispute & other entrenched disputes, tells me that there's little hope of deciding which date to go with. It's likely best if we adopt a 3/4 date. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think March 3 is the appropriate date. In fact, I have an article coming out in The Numismatist next month that discusses how Congress would continue past midnight as late as noon because of the uncertainty over the hour that Congress ended its term. But they would call it March 3, the legislative day of March 3 would continue until as late as noon. In 1865, both houses met until noon, or pretty close. In the article, I show that the bill for the three-cent nickel, often called the Act of March 3, 1865, was not signed by Lincoln until 11:30 am on March 4, but because it happened on the legislative day, it's considered March 3. The Senate session of March 4 or 5 was generally to confirm the president's nominees, if it was an inauguration year. Since the House does not have a role in the confirmation process, it was a lot less common for it to be called into session on March 4 or 5. If you have access to ProQuest Congressional, the timing is easy to prove through a look at the Congressional Globe or Record for one of the March 3. I probably have 10 or 12 articles that all say March 3. Even though the March 3 end was a legal fiction in some years, I think it would cause endless difficulties to try to figure this out on a case by case basis. After all, their terms weren't any different.

Incidentally, the First Congress did not meet on March 4, but because the Congress under the Articles of Confederation had prescribed a date, they just used it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, we should use March 4. There, you see why my two-date suggestion was made? GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

How about reading WP:Original research? Kraxler (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

March 4, is the correct date. But, I've stopped (quite awhile ago) trying to impliment it in the bio articles of pre-1935 representatives & senators, because of the continuing resistance of the thirders. TBH, the whole dispute itself is lame & I see little chance of it being resolved. Honestly, all these grudge matches over a measley 12 hours. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't read WP:Original research. How about citing one source that says "the term ended on March 4"? Kraxler (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Just the year

Why don't we totally disregard the actual dates for those who serve a full term, pre-20th Amendment? For example, instead fighting over whether Henry Wilson was a US Senator (March 4, 1855 - March 4, 1873) or (March 4, 1855 - March 3, 1873), why not just put (1855 - 1873). We can use dates for only those who assumed the seats late (special election, or disputed election) or left their seats early (resignation, death or election overturned), ok? GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be anachronistic to now change the standing historical record of individual Members of Congress terms ending March 3 as provided in law and reported by the Senate and House Historians in the Congressional Biographical Directory. At House History webpage [27] we have the one account of the only extension of the House correcting a misappropriation of $3 millions on June 30, 1906 --- and that was at the end of an extended First Session, not at the end of Representative’s terms. That’s it — by search on the House Historian’s website for March 4 end of sessions which Newyorkbrad said was to be changed throughout Congressional databases in 2006. He was clearly mislead by the staffer, though he left a happy camper at the time with privileged insider information. --- see the contradiction of his take-away in the case of Henry William Blair [28] viewed October 14, 2015, showing end of term dates of March 3.

Joint Sessions are held on ceremonial occasions on March 4 with new members, such as the inauguration of a President in alternate odd years. The counting of electoral votes for presidential elections was new business with new members who were newly sworn in on March 4 as I recall. I believe that Electoral College votes were initially counted from the November elections in December, allowing for a selection of the President in the House before the March 4 presidential inauguration if no one received an Electoral College majority in the November elections. It was not a surprise who would travel down Pennsylvania Avenue to presidential inauguration at noon In any case, that does not bear on the end of an individual’s term as have proposed. Nor does the fact that two-thirds of the Senate have continuing terms over any March 4 date due to the staggering of their six-year terms into class 1, 2 and 3, each elected two years apart. That accounts for the occasional Senate Special Sessions on March 4 "for one day only" as it is represented in the Congressional Biographical Directory, leading some to presume all Senators end their terms on the same day every two years, . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The beginning & ending of a congressional session, doesn't equate the beginning & ending of a congressional term. Otherwise, we'd be having the terms beginning in December. Seeing as we're not going to ever convince each other of the others argument, we should perhaps just go with the years. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Going to years only would not be a good idea. March 3 vs. March 4 is an issue that has seemed to stir more passion than it's worth ever since I raised it back in 2006, but even if we wind up handling the decision in way that some people think is incorrect or debatable, it's just a 12-hour discrepancy that didn't matter in most Congresses. But if we go to years-only, it doesn't reflect even what months of the first and last year the member served, which is significant information given that in many odd-numbered years pre-20th amendment there were sessions of both the outgoing Congress and the incoming one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a question of principle: Do Wikipedians make up things, do they rewrite History or do they follow the sources? Whatever has become of WP:V and WP:OR. "if we wind up handling the decision in way that some people think is incorrect or debatable"??? What about "if we followed the sources..." I mean "sources" (the original journals, the congressional biographical directory) not blatantly untenable ad hoc statements by whoever. Like the man who said "Under the US constitution, the term expires..." although we can read that the constitution didn't state any date. Period. It didn't. Just read the version before the XX Amendment. Kraxler (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If we follow the sources we must declare uncertainty - different reliable sources say different things, and some reliable sources that say "March 3" clearly mean "officially March 3 but really March 4 nudge nudge" while others don't have any "nudge nudge" and must, as reliable sources, be taken as face value to mean the actual calendar day of "March 3." For goodness sake, earlier in one of these discussions there were 19th-century Congressmen arguing over whether their term ended at the stroke of midnight after 11:59:59PM March 3, or whether it ended at lunchtime on March 4. If they couldn't agree, and if so many other reliable sources are inconsistent on the matter, then who are we to even try? Oh, and don't forget, the definition of "midnight" as "AM" (vs. "PM" vs. "neither AM nor PM") wasn't as clear in the late 1700s and 1800s as it is today (sorry, I don't have sources to back up that statement right now, it's something I learned decades ago). To those coming late to the discussion, I invite you to review all of the sources mentioned in this an previous discussions and weed out the unreliable ones. When you do, you'll still be left with conflicting statements by different reliable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. You are right to say that there was uncertainty. But we know, reading the sources, what the uncertainty was about. The legal term expired on March 3, but the session went on (on some occasions) until March 4. That the term expired at midnight was common knowledge, the session after midnight was nowhere officially acknowledged. The journals end on March 3. The Congressional Biographical Directory states March 3. That's the end of the term. Note that the term ends on March 3 also in years when March 3 was a Sunday and the session ended on March 2. The term also begins on March 4, although the new House never met on March 4. The first House had a quorum only on April 1. Later Houses met regularly in December and special sessions as early as May, but never on March 4. Nevertheless, the term is stated as March 4 to March 3, like a calendar year which starts on January 1 and ends on December 31. The calendar year does not end on January 1. So far so good. Now, the regular session started in early December, and by March 3 there was a lot of unfinished business. If there was still something unfinished at midnight, the party leaders insisted to finish business, over the objections of members who cited the common knowledge of their expired term. It has not been shown when exactly, in which years, that actually happened. 1851, 1865 and 1917 have been cited. No info yet on 1791, 1793, 1795... Can a Speaker or Senate President enact a constitutional amendment, ad hoc? Well, the answer is no. Can the session extend beyond the elected term? The answer is yes. Common law knows the legal concept of "holding over", i.e. as long as a new office holder has not taken office, incumbents may exercise their powers. It has been done zillions of times, especially in olden times when appointments were slow to be done and to be communicated. So, where does that leave us? Kraxler (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The legal terms ended at Noon EST on March 4. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: As I tried (and obviously failed) to point out above, reliable sources disagree on whether "The legal term expired on March 3". Some sources say that the legal term expired at noon EST on March 4. Since reliable sources disagree on when the term ends by a gap of 12 hours, who are we to say which is correct? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Show me the "source". I haven't seen any yet. Just give me a link, please. By the way, I mean sources not blogspots. Kraxler (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Look no further than the page you are currently reading: Revision as of 18:46, 7 October 2015 - additional evidence and Newyorkbrad's long commentary that started that section. If you want a particular source, Newyorkbrad's citing of the Congressional Record should be good enough. There is also this link about an early-19th century Congress that was internally conflicted on whether its term had expired or not at the stroke of midnight the evening of March 3. By the way, if the term really did expire on March 3, then there is a strong argument that any work done after midnight - no matter what "legislative day" it was - is arguably null and void. However, I am unaware of any court cases that challenged those acts, so whether they are null and void is probably unknown. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Solution We follow the official journals, and the Congressional Biographical Directory, and give March 3 as the term end date in bios. We follow reliable sources on a case-by-case basis for information on a session that actually extended into the early hours of March 4 and give this date as end date for the session at the Congress articles. Note that the end date should be March 2 if March 3 was a Sunday and there's no evidence that the session went on after midnight. We also mention in the article text that the session went on after midnight, citing a source. We keep a note at the US Congress WikiProject to explain the apparent discrepancy in end dates, as explained here. Kraxler (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We should use March 4, if we're going to use any date. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay for the reasons set forth at length above, although I've been educated that there was a bit more ambiguity than I'd imagined in the earliest days of the Republic. In general, though, I don't think there was any "nudge nudge" about it; certainly in 1917, no one doubted that the House and Senate could sit until the stroke of noon on the 4th, and this wasn't a "stop the clock" situation such as one encounters in some state legislatures.

I've explained above in detail why the concept of "holding over" is not applicable here, and ask those interested to scroll up for that, because the page is long enough without all of us repeating ourselves.

Kraxler, can you point to where the Journals (as opposed to the Biographical Directory) yield a March 3 result, so I can evaluate that source. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RE User:Newyorkbrad -- This was mentioned in the 2012 discussion on your user talk page. It is one of all House and Senate journals available at the Congressional history site. just go to the mainpage and click on any journal in any odd-numbered year, go to the last day and you see March 3 as the last recorded day. That's a fact. We know that in this case, which is linked here, shortly after midnight (on page 251) Senator Mason voiced his opinion that his term had expired, and wanted to be sworn in for his re-elected term. A resolution with a blatantly false statement citing the Constitution was then passed. Can a constitutional amendment be passed by ad hoc resolution? Well, no, and even the journal did not recognize the nonsense. Kraxler (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

{ping|Kraxler} Brief response for now, because it will take me time to look at everything that's being cited, but the fact that the last day of sessions is recorded on March 3 means little, because that clearly refers to legislative days. If the House or Senate had voted to adjourn until 10 a.m. on March 4, then it would have said the session ended on March 4.

That's actually a good way of framing the issue, actually. If the House or Senate had voted to hold a new day's session on the morning of March 4, would it have had the authority to do so? I think it would, because there's no constitutional difference between calling the body to order on the morning of March 4 and transacting business, versus being in session on the morning of March 4 and transacting business without having gone home from the night before.

Meanwhile, we need to find another way of structuring this thread, because with all the additions in the middle of the thread, people are going to miss things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

{ping|Kraxler} A further thought. You correctly point out that Senator Mason voiced his objection to the Senate's continuing to sit after midnight. That's true enough. But the fact remains that despite his objection, and despite other Senators' and Representatives' objections from time to time, the Senate and House did sometimes continue sitting past midnight. I've invested about enough mental energy into this point for right now, and I'm curious enough to want to look up more of the references when I can—but wouldn't the decisions of the presiding officers and the majority of the Members of each house to remain in session, be a better guide to the general interpretation of the term-end than the isolated comments of a individual Members? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Objections were raised, verifiably, on this occasion, and a resolution was, verifiably, passed this time. We have still no idea what happened on the other 137 occasions, and Bill McKerns sources explicitly say "the term expired on March 3". I haven't seen any printed contemporaneous source, except ad hoc resolutions which say "the term expires on March 4" The facts are clear: The term expired, but the session continued, on a not specified number of occasions. What bars us from telling our readers what happened? Why would we (the Wiki editors) have to override the sources, instead of explaining what happened? Kraxler (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

{ping|Kraxler} I'm sincerely not trying to be difficult here, but I guess that articulation of the issue frames a very basic question: how could the House or Senate remain in session after its members' terms (or in the Senate's case, some of them) had expired?? Stepping back a minute, what does the word "term" mean in the first place? To me, it means the length of time during which the Representative or Senator is entitled to act as a Representative or Senator. If the outgoing Representatives or Senators were permitted to be in session and to vote on pass bills on the morning of March 4, it seems paradoxical at best to say that their terms were already over. (And this is not, for reasons discussed elsewhere, a holdover situation.) Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

RE User:Newyorkbrad : "To me, it means the length of time during which the Representative or Senator is entitled to act as a Representative or Senator. If the outgoing Representatives or Senators were permitted to be in session and to vote on pass bills on the morning of March 4, it seems paradoxical at best to say that their terms were already over." -- The members were entitled to sit until midnight. They sat longer, on a non specified number of occasions, because they chose to, under a pretext, not because they were permitted by anybody. There is nothing paradoxical about it. Kraxler (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that the term expiration should be reported as March 3 because that is the convention that the official sources followed, or for similar reasons. If there's a consensus to report things that way, although I don't think there should be or is one, I can live with it. But given that I've been accused of OR for seeking to report things in a way that is admittedly at odds with the Marc 3 references, I think it would be a tenfold greater instance of OR to conclude that the post-midnight March 3/4 sitting might actually have been invalid or pretextual. Granted though that you are saying that just here on a talkpage discussion, and not proposing to put it into an article. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad : Now we are getting somewhere. You finally acknowledge that there is indeed a convention to report the March 3 date (not by Wiki consensus, but by the contemporaneous sources), that's absolutely correct. If they say that a term lasted from March 4 to March 3, it means much more than just two dates. It implies that no congressman who was holding office from March 4 set foot in Washington DC before December, except on about 18 occasions when special sessions were held. It implies that they were sitting from December well into May or longer in even-numbered years, and coming back in December they would sit until March 2 or 3, and sometimes (we don't know how many times) into the small hours of March 4. All that is understood by saying March 4 to March 3. It can be explained. But we can not rewrite History. And now a little metaphor, again: Imagine there is a law that says that a surgeon must not work more than 24 hours in a row. At a certain hospital the surgeon enters at noon one day, and leaves on noon the next day, getting a day off and return on some later day at noon, and another surgeon coming in at noon, and so on. At 11:40 an ambulance brings an injured patient, needing an urgent operation. He starts to operate and finishes at about 1 p.m. Now a Wikipedia user comes into the OP theater and sees the surgeon leaving at 1 p.m. and concludes that all surgeons at all times have worked for 25 hours in a row, and since he actually saw the surgeon at 1 p.m., the law must permit 25 hours as a working time. When pointed out that the law says explicitly that the maximum is 24 hours, he answers that that can not be, because he once saw the surgeon in the hospital during his 25th hour. Well, the truth is that the surgeon stayed beyond the permitted time because he chose to do so, and nobody complained. Now think again about our congressmen. Kraxler (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(I'm heading out for a weekend mostly offline and will pick this up next week.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad -- Here are some of the sources I found. This 1913 US Senate compilation of contested election cases indicates that terms ended on March 3. I found this explicitly stated on pages 7, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 244, 273, 298, 341, 353, 382, 482, 562, 787, 812, 875, 878, and 1159. Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives, Volume 1 indicates that terms ended on March 3. Pages where I found this include 263, 343, 354, 783, 902, 1017, and 1018. This 1886 US Senate list of gubernatorial appointments to fill Senate vacancies includes references to terms ending on March 3 on pages 7, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 164, 202, 240, 248, 272, 283, 287, 295, 324, 426, 427, 505, 507, and 509.

Billmckern (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Second solution being proposed: Cite the sources with relevant quotes placed in the citations (per WP:V) next to the infobox date of the term finishing and forget about the sessions. Just saying, this is more fuss than it's worth. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of these references, in congressional biographies and infoboxes and tables and lists and so forth, all over the place. If this is more fuss now than it's worth, which it may well be, I fear that adding references to each term date on a case-by-case basis would multiply the work and the fuss a hundredfold. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

'"Many hands make light work", says Drcrazy102 in a wise monk voice.' There are around 10 editors that are involved in this and how many more in the various projects related to these areas? It is not that hard when considering this has been argued for almost a decade now without a resolution. Just tear the band-aid off and solve the problem. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Drcrazy102, most of the congressmen's bios were originally imported into Wikipedia by User:Polbot from the Congressional Biographical Directory, stating March 3 as term end. Most of the bios still show that date. All New York bios, and New York district lists show March 3 as end date. Many other states' congressmen and and senators and district lists, if not all, show also March 3. We are doing here a philosophical debate triggered by User:Czoal about something without much consequence. No change is necessary, and while the discussion in going on no change should be made anyway. Kraxler (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So far I’ve found March 4 for Senate Special Session “for one day only” and repeated ceremonial joint sessions of Congress on March 4 consisting of formal ratification of the Electoral College vote, and inauguration of the President -- do both old and new crowd into the Chamber? Before or after swearing in the new? Perhaps a scholarly study of the Journal will yield a reliable conclusion. What do scholars and government sources say?

The sources pointing for current .gov databases show that March 3 is still used by the House Historian’s office for pre-Amendment end-of-terms of both Representatives and Senators, despite representations made to Newyorkbrad in 2006, — see the case of Henry William Blair at [29] viewed Oct 14, 2015. I wonder what the hold up is, or whether there could be some as yet undisclosed misunderstanding on the part of those interpreting March 4 as the end-of-term date for Senators and Representatives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Of those whose point of view is opposed to mine, Billmckern has provided the most meaningful evidence, which I will take a closer look at in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Re: private information consulting with a lone Congressional Biographical Directory staffer in 2006. Were they kind enough to furnish a source for the change from March 3 to March 4 globally for all terms in all Congresses prior to Constitutional Amendment? Perhaps you could favor us with a copy-paste of the text in a {{quotation|text}} box and the title of the staffer, since it has not been done over the subsequent nine years, see [30] viewed Oct 14, 2015. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any further information about the private communication, though perhaps I will write to them again. I don't claim that the e-mail, without more, is dispositive of anything. To be continued.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Another data point. The point of John Adam’s “midnight appointments” leading to the well known Marbury v. Madison case is that terms of Presidents ended at midnight of March 3 the fourth year of their four-year term. The day after, 2/3 of the Senate’s terms did not end at that time, enabling Senate confirmations of the presidential judiciary appointments. The 2/3 Senators sitting in terms not ended continued to complete a full six years in the two unaffected classes. This accounts for an extended Senate Special Session on March 4 “one day only” as reported in the Congressional Biographical Dictionary, while its Congressional Session is end-dated March 3,1799 for the Fifth Congress, one day earlier, due to the end of Representatives terms on March 3. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your reliance on the events leading to Marbury v. Madison is completely misplaced. First of all, President Adams did not rush to appoint those judges before midnight on March 3; as discussed in our article on the Midnight Judges Act, although there was a popular rumor that he was rushing to get things done by midnight, in fact "actually, only three commissions were signed on his last day" and there is no evidence that the time of day was a factor. The appointments needed to be made in advance of the expiration of the terms simply so that the Senate would have time to confirm them.

Also, you are off on the timing: the "midnight" appointments preceded the expiration of Adams' term in 1801, so the session dates for 1799 are a different year altogether.

Your suggestion that a holdover Senate ever convened including only Senators from the two holdover classes, and not the incoming class, is also false. That absolutely never, ever happened. (The closest something like that ever came to occurring was when the Senate convened in 1949, and the swearing in of all but one new or reelected senator was delayed by the dispute over seating Theodore Bilbo. That was fascinating in its own right, but had nothing to do with the term dates, and in any event post-dated the Twentieth Amendment.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, J. Adam’s "midnight" appointments were before the end-of-March 3, 1801 end-of-term and certainly not on March 4 after his term had expired. If only the incoming class of Senators participated in the March 4 Senate Special Session of “only one day” of a Session with an end date of March 3, and NOT the outgoing Senators as Newyorkbrad now posits, then the outgoing class ended their term on March 3. March 4 ending of a Senator’s term “never ever happened” according to Newyorkbrad’s last post, it was only “the incoming class” which ever participated in the March 4 sessions along with the two holdover classes. I would like to see a reference to this effect besides the Congressional Biographical Directory, since this seems to contravene Newyorkbrad's previous position.

We are agreed -- there was never any Senate session with a holdover class of expired term Senators on March 4, there were only “the incoming class” on the floor sworn in on March 4 during the morning hour before business was taken up that day. It would be nice to have a confirmation in the reliable sources, or a journal cite online for confirmation, even if it is original research. But the latest post from Newyorkbrad confirms March 3 as an ending date for Senate terms without additional reliable sources, (not original research into primary documents), --- besides the research of applicable law by the History Offices of the House and the Senate in the Congressional Biographical Dictionary stating terms of individuals end on March 3 prior to the Constitutional Amendment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

John Adams' term as President ended at March 4, 1801 Noon EST. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian continues to misread everything I say, to mean the very opposite of what I say, and I am out of ideas for how to deal with him. As noted above, I'll respond to some of Kraxler's and others' points after the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Favor us with a reference for discussion here and now justifying March 4 end-of-term date for Representatives, rather than a global reference to your work in 2006, which seems conflated with presidential signings after close of session and end of terms, avoiding a pocket veto.

There is no misreading of the post, Your suggestion that a holdover Senate ever convened including only Senators from the two holdover classes, and not the incoming class, is also false. That absolutely never, ever happened. The incoming class of Senators sat in March 4 extra sessions of the Senate according to Newyorkbrad, and “absolutely never, ever" the outgoing class whose term expired on March 3 as reliably sourced to the Congressional Biographical Directory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just the year arbitrary break

March 4 end-of-term date related to Congressional Sessions is used by Jeffery A. Jenkens at the University of Virginia, with Congressional Sessions terminating on March 4, at noon, in an article published by the Studies in American Political Development. (2008). [31] The Senate webpage interpretation of the U.S. Constitution refers to "a newly elected House rather than one set to go out of existence on March 4.” [32]

But not only does the Congressional Biographical Directory end pre-Amendment terms for Representatives and Senators on March 3, The Biographical Directory of the United States Executive Branch, 1774-1989. uses March 3 as the end date of 19th century Presidents such as John Tyler [33].

@Davidwr: What is the rationale for the difference between March 3 for end-of-term and March 4 end-of-session again? Are they the same, so we are left with deciding the preponderance of reliable sources? Should the Wikipedia Infobox entries wait to be changed when the Congressional Biographical Directory changes as Newyorkbrad has assured us it will do in an edition subsequent to the 2006 edition? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

John Tyler's term as President ended at Noon EST on March 4, 1845. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source for this statement? A pre-1935 source, preferably. Kraxler (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

See Polk's Inauguration, where it mentions his being accompanied at the ceremony by the outgoing President, John Tyler. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This source does not mention any time of day. Anyway, the terms of President and VP follow a different pattern. They are executive officers and an oath is required to take office. Members of Congress are legislative officers and their term begins on March 4 while they usually took their oath in December. No comparison possible. I suggest all those who take part in this debate stop generalizing. Otherwise, the answer to all questions is 42. Kraxler (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There's likely never going to be an agreement over which departure date to use for pre-1935 representatives & senators. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I assume you are asking me because of something I said earlier, but I've said a lot, so please reference the specific thing I said earlier so I have some context. Or, if I'm wrong and ou are asking me for some other reason, please clarify what you are asking - the phrase "What is the rationale for the difference between March 3 ... and March 4 ...?" means different things depending on the context (do you mean "why do some reliable sources say March 3 and some say March 4?" or "why do some Wikipedia editors say March 3 and some say March 4?" or something else entirely?) and I'm a bit confused at this point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with your edit on the 20th Amendment introduction to conform with the Amendment, which is silent on the end dates of the old terms of office. I agree with the statement, If we follow the sources we must declare uncertainty I agree with @Kraxler: that by and large The legal term expired on March 3, but the session went on (on some occasions) until March 4. This raises the possibility of asserting a term was extended by law to conform with the sessions, for those few hundred cases, rather than a global change of the end-of-term date from March 3 to March 4.

Since 2006, Newyorkbrad has assured us that U.S. government sources will make a global change from March 3 to March 4 for individual Members end of terms in due time. But that time has not yet arrived in the two most widely used sources on the subject, The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 2005 online using March 3[34] and The Biographical Directory of the United States Executive Branch, 1774-1989. using March 3 [35]. GoodDay has proposed we use just the year, without dates in info boxes, dating only special elections, disputed elections, resignations, death or election overturned.

So I pose three questions, 1) Infobox March 4 or year only. Should we seek either a preponderance of sources to come to a global change from March 3 to March 4 end-of-term for individual Members, or simply punt for the moment for info boxes and use year only. Each Member would then be treated individually recording the dates of actual service in the article, usually March 3 or March 4 according to the session.

2) Infobox case-by-case. Should we make changes only to the Members whose terms were extended to March 4 by law when their sessions were extended, in which case we would make the change only to the affected few hundred Members info boxes, mostly using March 3 when most pre-Amendment terms and sessions end, but also March 4, or

3) Infobox March 3 for now. Should we take the U.S. Government as authoritative of itself for Congressional and Executive terms, in which case we use March 3 until they change, but still noting actual dates of service in articles noting end of sessions on March 4? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We should use March 4 for all articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase Kraxler, do you have a favorite source for this statement to apply to all pre-Amendment Member biographies and Congresses? Something is needed to contravene the March 3 of the Biographical Directories of the United States Congress 2005 [36] and of the United States Executive Branch, 1774-1989 [37], before they change end-of-term dates to correspond to Congresses ending March 3 and March 4. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

See Cornell University Law School's reading, where it describes March 4. TBH we're not going to convince each other & therefore, I see no resolution to this dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a good reference for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary report in 1933 suggesting March 4 as an end-of-term date. But it is not scholarly research. Here we see by unsourced reasoning that since the first day-of-term was March 4, therefore the last day must be March 4. But that is not rooted in the practice of the 19th century by law, hence the subsequent editions of the Congressional Biographical Directory and the Executive Biographical Directory did not change their practice from the 1800s of dating end of term in the 1800s as March 3 by law — a practice in subsequent editions of both publications down to the present day.

Terms may have been extended to March 4 by law at the extension of sessions, although Newyorkbrad assures us that this was “never, ever” the case for the Senate, March 4 business was always conducted by the 1/3 incoming class, never the outgoing. A March 4 end-of-term date might be noted Congress by Congress for individual Members biographies where their term does not extend to a subsequent March 3, but not globally for all info boxes. I have a copy of the 1911 "Biographical Congressional Directory", and it uses March 3 as end of term dates globally. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There's likely never going to be an agreement over which departure date to use, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be overly pessimistic. We certainly should close this discussion, and start something new. Maybe a page in article space, citing sources, about the controversy. And then agree on a practical solution. Kraxler (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

List of sources in a table showing support for Term and/or Session finish

I am in the process of creating a table to list the 50+ sources that have been used so that discussion can actually return to the core policies of being verifiable, being reliably sourced, and stating what the sources say rather than our own research (NOR). I have been unable to list some sources as I do not have access to them online. I would ask that such sources be listed by other editors that do have access to them, with relevant citation parameters, etc. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Source/Reference	Support "March 3"	Support "March 4"	Quote(/s)	Checked for Reliability
Ritchie, D. (2006), The Congress of the United States: A Student Companion (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 169, ISBN 9780195309249			"... and a president pro tempore of the Senate during the long break between the Congress that ended its term on March 3 after an election and the next Congress ..."	Not checked yet
McCutcheon, C. (2014), Congress A to Z (revised ed.), CQ Press, p. 335, ISBN 1452287511			"The First Congress opened on March 4, 1789, and soon decided that congressional terms would begin and end on that date each year."	Not checked yet
Bennett, Charles G., Secretary of the Senate (1913), Compilation of Senate Election Cases from 1789 to 1913, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 7, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 244, 273, 298, 341, 353, 382, 482, 562, 787, 812, 875, 878, 1159{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)			"Archibald Dixon, Senator from Kentucky from December 20, 1852 till March 3, 1855"; "Samuel S. Phelps, Senator from Vermont from March 4, 1839 to March 3, 1851"; "Henry W. Blair, Senator from New Hampshire from June 20, 1879 to March 3, 1891", etc.	Yes
Hinds, Asher Crosby, Clerk at the Speaker's Table (1907), Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 263, 343, 354, 783, 902, 1017, 1018{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)			"Resolved, that James B. Eustis is entitled to a seat in the Senate of the United States from the State of Louisiana, from the 12th day of January 1876, for the term ending March 3, 1879..."; "On June 30, 1868 Mr. Timothy O. Howe, of Wisconsin, presented the credentials of Thomas W. Osborn, as Senator from Florida to fill the term expiring on March 3, 1873"; "On December 5, 1887, in the Senate, the President pro tempore presented the certificate of the appointment, by the governor of West Virginia, of Daniel B. Lucas as Senator from that State, to hold the office "until the next meeting of the legislature of said State having authority to fill" the vacancy occasioned by the expiration of the term of Johnson N. Camden on March 3, 1887"; etc.	Yes
Taft, George S. Clerk to Committee on Privileges and Elections, U.S. Senate (1886), A List Showing all the Appointments of Senators by Governors of States from the First to the Forty-Ninth Congress", U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 7, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 164, 202, 240, 248, 272, 283, 287, 295, 324, 426, 427, 505, 507, 509{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)			"Henry Latimer elected February 7, 1795, to fill unexpired term ending March 3, 1797"; "Abraham Venable elected to fill unexpired term ending March 3, 1809", etc.	Yes
Rowell, Chester Harvey (1901), A Historical and Legal Digest of All Contested Election Cases in the House, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 106, 386			"Under the laws of Mississippi Representatives in Congress were elected in November of the odd numbered years, and there were consequently no elected Representatives from the expiration of a Congress on March 3 until shortly before the usual time of the meeting of the next Congress in December."; "These reports were made to the House on February 24, 1863, and under consideration when the Congress expired by limitation, on March 3."	Yes
Halford, A. J. (1904), Official Congressional Directory (2nd ed.), U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 1, 2, etc.			"His term of service will expire on March 3, 1907"; "His term of service will expire March 3, 1909"; "He was elected for the short term expiring March 3, 1899; "..served until the expiration of his term, March 3, 1893", etc.	Yes
Byrd, Robert C.; Wolff, Wendy (1993), Senate, 1789-1989: Historical Statistics, 1789-1992, vol. 4, U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 449			"The second session would convene again in December and end on March 3 of the odd-numbered year."	Yes
History of Congress: Exhibiting a Classification of the Proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives from March 4, 1789 to March 3, 1793; Embracing the First Term of the Administration of General Washington, vol. I, Carey, Lea & Blanchard (Philadelphia, PA), 1834, p. title			"Exhibiting a Classification of the Proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives from March 4, 1789 to March 3, 1793"	Yes
Hinds, Asher Crosby, Clerk at the Speaker's Table (1899), Parliamentary Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 5, U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 798{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)			"On March 3, 1881, at midnight, Mr. Otho R. Singleton, of Mississippi, rising to a question of order, said that the hour of 12 o'clock had arrived, and made the point of order that the Forty-Sixth Congress had expired." "...The chair supposes that the practice of Congress in this connection is based on the fact that it does not recognize the calendar day, but recognizes the legislative day. The legislative day of the 3d of March does not expire until 12 o'clock noon on the 4th of March." (My question: Why would the House leaders in essence pretend that the morning of March 4 was still March 3 unless they knew that their terms had expired on March 3? It seems to me that if they thought their terms expired on March 4, raising the point of order at midnight on March 3 would have been unnecessary, and the "legislative day" construct would not have been adopted. In fact this House precedent indicates that when House business couldn't be done by noon on March 4, the end of the "legislative day" of March 3, Speakers would stop the clock in the House chamber and pretend that noon of March 4 had not yet arrived, so that they could continue to pretend they were still in the "legislative day" of March 3.)	Yes
The National Almanac and Annual Record, George W. Childs (Philadelphia), 1863, p. 71			"The Congress of the United States: Time; March 4, 1789 to March 3, 1791; October 24, 1791 to March 2, 1793; December 2, 1793 to March 3, 1795... July 4, 1861 to March 3, 1863" (Note: March 3, 1793 was a Sunday, so Congress adjourned on March 2)	Yes
Force, Peter (1828), A National Calendar, vol. 6, Peter Force (Washington, DC), p. 34, etc.			"Names of Senators; Expiration of Service; March 3, 1827; March 3, 1801; March 3, 1807" "Names of Representatives; Expiration of Service; March 3, 1825, March 3, 1823, March 3, 1827, March 3, 1791", etc.	Yes

Resolution on Congressional term end dates?

Did we ever come to any resolution on March 3 versus March 4? I don't see any new comments after creation of the table of references on this topic.

Billmckern (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Still awaiting Newyorkbrad's review of sources perhaps. It seems to me that both March 3 and March 4 can be used, one globally, one as exceptions are documented. As the chart indicates, the global should be March 3 as is found in US government publications. Whenever sessions were extended by law to March 4, it seems that end of terms would have been extended by law as well. So individual Members of Congress might have their term end dates conform to those unique sessions on a case by case basis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: But as far as I can tell, sessions weren't extended to March 4 by law. Instead, the presiding officers developed the "legislative day" precedent we've discussed here, and they pretended that the morning of March 4 was still March 3. All the work they did during the morning of March 4 was dated March 3. The presiding officers would even stop their chamber's clocks before noon on the 4th of March if necessary so that the "legislative day" of March 3 could continue.

Why would presiding officers and parliamentarians develop and employ this precedent if they thought their terms ended on March 4? I can't draw any other conclusion than that they knew they were supposed to be done on March 3, and so they made sure they were done on March 3 -- even when they had to resort to stopped clocks and backdating to make it happen.

Billmckern (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. So all end-of-term dates should be March 3, with sessions extended to March 4 noted in the biography narratives only as it applies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Seems sensible to me. Let's see if anyone else wants to comment before we consider the question resolved. Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not happy about this (I would prefer we admit that historians are not of one mind regarding the end of the term) I am willing to concede that the preponderance of historians tend to favor the March 3 date for the end of the term. However, we should put links to all of the major past discussions in a central place (such as this talk page or the talk page of (one of) the affected template(s)) and put a link to that "list of links" on the talk pages of all affected templates and WikiProjects, just so we don't go "round and round again" the next time an editor notices that historians don't agree with each other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I still favour usage of March 4. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on what? It seems to me that the most reliable sources are almost all consistent with the use of March 3. If the most reliable sources use March 3, then what's the basis for using March 4? Are there other sources we ought to be considering?

Billmckern (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been pulled away from his discussion for a few days. I will catch up over this weekend with my current thinking. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As someone completely uninvolved and with little background in US government, I just want to say that I found the existence of this dispute fascinating, and I learned a lot from it. With that in mind, I think it would be fairly interesting to coalesce the numerous sources and discrepancies covered above and incorporate them into an article explaining the historical confusion before its eventual clarification by the 20th amendment. Besides being interesting (as this debate itself was), it would also provide a convenient place to link to in those specific instances where sessions overran. Eniagrom (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Circling back as I promised, with apologies again for the delay. The reason for the wait is that I was hoping, before I addressed the substance of this issue again, to review each instance from the 1790s through the 1930s in which a congressional session actually lasted until March 3 or 4 (i.e., Congress didn't adjourn the session sine die on an earlier date). If the Congress sat through the morning of March 4, until the presiding officers declared adjournment at 12 noon on March 4, that is a datapoint for the "March 4" side of the debate; if hypothetically the presiding officers had declared adjournment at 12 midnight at the end of March 3, that would be a datapoint for the "March 3" side; if Congress stayed in session past midnight on March 3/4 but over the protests of individual members, that would be an intermediate datapoint (I'd say a stronger point for "March 4", myself).

Unfortunately, within the past couple of years, two libraries that had full runs of the Congressional Record and its predecessors either available for open browsing, or readily retrievable for viewing at the library, have changed their logistics. I can no longer quickly skim through the many volumes of sessions at the libraries; I would either have to requisition individual volumes from an offsite facility, which takes time and there are limits to how many volumes they'll retrieve at once, or perhaps work with the Record in microform, which my aging eyes have asked me not to do if I can help it. And unless I have missed a development (in which case someone please tell me!) the availability and robustness of the Annals, Globe, and Record in online form is not good, although I presume that within the next couple of years it will be much better.

I still intend to pursue that project, partly for this discussion and partly for my own interest, but to do it conveniently will require a trip to the research room at the National Archives, which has the last full set of the Record on open shelving that I'm currently aware of. I'll do that as soon as I can, but I can't say exactly when it'll be, and I shouldn't delay posting here any longer in the meantime.

So let's summarize where we are. I think the best arguments for the "March 4" position can be summarized as follows:

(A) Several times an outgoing Congress physically sat and transacted business into the morning of March 4. The fact that Members transacted business on the floor of the House and Senate until mid-day on March 4 is at least some evidence that their terms had not expired the night before.

(B) In fact, several times the outgoing Congress sat right up until 12 noon on March 4, when the presiding officers declared the Congress adjourned pursuant to the Constitution. There is no known instance of the presiding officer making such a declaration at 12 midnight on March 3/4.

(C) The incoming Congress's terms started at 12 noon on March 4. It is logical to believe that the outgoing Members' terms ended when the incoming Members' began, as opposed to their having been 12 hours without a Congress.

(D) The outgoing President routinely performed the duties of his office, including signing bills into law, on the morning of March 4, so the presidential term must have lasted until 12 noon—and presumably the Vice President's term too, since they are elected simultaneously and for the same term. There is no reason to believe that the Congressional term was other than coterminous than the President's or Vice President's term.

The best arguments for the "March 3" position might be summarized thus (please feel free to add to this list):

(A) In some instances, especially in earlier Congresses, individual Members doubted the body's authority to sit past midnight on March 3/4 (although I'm not aware of either chamber as a whole taking this position).

(B) Contemporaneous and historical documents (such as the Biographical Directory) listed the Members' terms as lasting from March 4 of the first year of service until March 3 of the last year. (But note—this may be a new observation— that they say the same thing about the Presidents, and that is just wrong.)

Thoughts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I provided references in the table above which go back to 1834 and show that Congressional terms ended on March 3.

When Congress sat into the day of March 4 in odd-numbered years, the presiding officers said it was still March 3 -- the precedent of the "legislative day" of March 3 that ended at noon on March 4. Why would they pretend it was still March 3 if they thought their terms ended on March 4? The only reason to pretend it was still March 3 on the 4th of March would be if the presiding officers knew that Congressional terms ended on March 3, but they still had business to transact.

I can provide additional references which show that terms ended on March 3. The National Calendar almanac for 1831 includes a list beginning on page 112 of Senators from 1789. Except for deaths and resignations, they all show a March 3 end date. Not one shows an end date of March 4. The National Calendar for 1828 shows the same thing, beginning on page 34 -- terms ending on March 3, not March 4, excepting deaths and resignations. Volume 3 of 1884's History of Philadelphia also lists term end dates as March 3. The Long Island Star for February 11, 1839 includes a story on the New York State Legislature conducting an election for a successor to Senator Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, "whose term expires on the 3rd of March next." The Philadelphia Public Ledger for October 19, 1837 contains a table for the beginning and end date of each Congressional session (not term). The sessions for each odd-numbered year ended on March 3, except for 1793, when March 3 fell on a Sunday, so Congress adjourned on March 2. The 1863 edition of The New American Cyclopaedia shows the Senate terms of William M. Gwin ending on March 3, 1855 and March 3, 1861.

I think the issue of when presidential terms ended wasn't really pressed until the end of Polk's term in 1849. Polk thought he was done at midnight of March 3/4. Members of Congress and his cabinet opined that because the Constitution specified a presidential oath at noon on March 4, Polk was in fact President until noon. Polk accepted that advice and continued to sign bills and other documents through the morning of March 4. As it happened, March 4, 1849 was a Sunday, and for religious reasons Taylor opted to wait until March 5 to take his oath. But Polk's action established a precedent and pretty well ended the debate as far as presidential terms were concerned.

Based on everything I've found, especially primary House and Senate sources, it still seems to me that March 3 is the correct end date for Congressional terms before the enactment of the 20th Amendment.

Billmckern (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reference for "When Congress sat into the day of March 4 in odd-numbered years, the presiding officers said it was still March 3"? (My apologies if I missed it above; the discussion is a little bit unwieldy at this point.) I agree that it was the legislative day of March 3, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the actual day of the morning of March 4. That the calendar day isn't necessarily the same as the legislative day is part of the whole concept of "legislative day." That does not justify a conclusion that the House or Senate were "cheating" or staying past their term expiration as some people have suggested. If they were going to cheat, they could have sat past noon just as well as they sat past midnight.

You haven't responded to my points that it wouldn't make much sense to have 12 hours in every other year in which there is no Congress, nor 12 hours in which there is a President but no Congress.

I concede the point that many contemporaneous documents give the March 3 date; that is by far the best evidence in favor of March 3 as the date, as I conceded above. But I still can't get over the fact that if the House and the Senate frequently met through the morning of March 4 to transact business, it's problematic to say that the Members' terms ended the night before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The reference I provided in the table above, Parliamentary Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, shows that the concept of the March 3 legislative day extending until noon of March 4 -- When challenged on the point that terms had expired at midnight of March 3/4, the Speaker explicitly stated "...The chair supposes that the practice of Congress in this connection is based on the fact that it does not recognize the calendar day, but recognizes the legislative day. The legislative day of the 3d of March does not expire until 12 o'clock noon on the 4th of March." By the time of the event cited in the reference, the "legislative day" of March 3rd was already well-established as indicated by the additional information in the reference.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that the members of the House and Senate knew that their terms ended on March 3rd. If they thought their terms ended on March 4th, they wouldn't have come up with the 36 hour "legislative day" of March 3 as a rationale for continuing to transact business on March 4. To me the issue isn't whether they were transacting business on March 4th -- it's an obvious fact that they were as long as linear time remains a concept. I think the issue is when their terms ended. To me, that's clearly March 3rd -- even when they transacted business in the morning on March 4th, they told themselves that legally and in parliamentary usage, it was still March 3rd.

In fact, Congress sometimes sat past noon on March 4th. When that happened, the presiding officers would stop the clocks in the chambers or turn them back and continue to pretend that they were still within the March 3rd legislative day. The Boston Evening Transcript for March 4, 1887 contains stories about the adjournment of Congress, one of which has a line reading "The President, accompanied by Messrs. Bayard, Fairchild and Vilas, arrived at the Senate at five minutes before twelve to sign the remaining bills. The clocks in both houses were then turned back a quarter of an hour, and later were turned back again, while the President continued signing bills." Since the preceding paragraph mentions bills that were passed at 6 o'clock that morning, it is clear that the 12 o'clock referred to is noon, not midnight.

There was no requirement for members of Congress to take an oath at noon on March 4, as there was for the President and Vice President. That's why Congressional terms ended on March 3 and began on March 4. But a term of Congress used to consist of two sessions -- one long and one short. The long one ran from December of the odd numbered year until business was complete in the spring or summer of the following even-numbered year -- usually December to May, June or July. The short session would run from December of the even numbered year to March 3 of the odd-numbered year. In other words, at midnight on March 3/4 of the odd-numbered year, the members of the new Congress weren't typically beating down the doors to push the members of the old Congress out. The members of the new Congress wouldn't arrive to begin work until December of the odd numbered year -- 13 months after they'd been elected in November of the previous even-numbered year.

As an example, read any Lincoln biography and you'll see that he was elected to the U.S. House in November of 1846, and his term started on March 4, 1847. But Lincoln arrived in Washington to take the oath and begin work on December 6, 1847 -- the start of the long session of the 30th Congress, which ran until August of 1848. Then the short session started in December of 1848 and ran to March 3 of 1849.

Billmckern (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Billmckern: As you suggested 30 days ago, and two weeks following the last input from Newyorkbrad, --- without any further objection, I think that we can consider the matter resolved for March 3 end of term in Congressional term Infobox entries --- for any reasonable purpose. In exceptional sessions which physically extended beyond midnight, note can be made in an article narrative where it is material; if it is of no consequence in the legislative career of an individual, it need not be mentioned. How best to promulgate the policy? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Technical note - please don't call it a "policy" - call it a "change" or call it "the consensus of the discussion" but don't call it a "policy." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Politicians convicted of crimes

I'm currently involved in a couple of debates about whether or not politicans who received criminal convictions before their political careers began ought to be included in Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. I've no strong opinion on the matter but amn't happy with the disparity I've seen. A list of US politicians with criminal convictions stipulates they committed their crimes while in office, while the only countries I've seen that include politicans whose convictions precede their political careers are Ireland and South Africa. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please bear in mind, in some jurisdictions, very minor offenses that are normally considered "not criminal" are technically criminal. An example would be a minor traffic citation: In some states, it is a non-criminal "civil" offense. In Washington, D.C., it's an "infraction," which is an offense lower than a misdemeanor (I'm not sure if it's technically a criminal offense or not). In some states, it's the lowest-possible-level "misdemeanor" offense, and it's clearly a "criminal offense." Same act, similar fine, same consequences with respect to employment, etc., but a different label. I say this because many if not most adults who drive, whether they are politicians or not, have at least one traffic ticket to their name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. The situation with the Irish and South African politicians is a little different. Both countries have had conflicts in the 20th century. Many of the protagonists were convicted of crimes (definitely not misdemeanours) under the regimes extant during the conflicts and subsequently became politicians. Because of the conflicts, these politicans have both fans and detractors with equally strong feelings about whether they ought to be categorised as criminals, so having some kind of policy on the matter would help prevent edit wars. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with Colleen Bell?

Hello, project members! I'm posting here to see if anyone is willing to help update the article on U.S. Ambassador to Hungary Colleen Bell. You can see my current request to rewrite the article's Political career section on the article's Talk page, which attempts to address several concerns about the content, including unsourced information and some reliance on primary sources. I have a financial conflict of interest, as I am working on behalf of Ms. Bell, so I believe it best that I not make direct edits myself. That's why I'm looking for others' input and assistance in making the changes if they seem reasonable. Please join the discussion over there, if you have the time. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales

There is currently an ongoing discussion surrounding wording and tone issues with the Green Party of England and Wales Please feel free to joining the discussions here. This will help to contribute to the general clean up of the article and improve the article. Sport and politics (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)