Talk:Women in the United States House of Representatives

Future service

Many of these women went on to other prominent government positions. Should we list future positions? E.g., "… Ruth Bryan Owen (D-FL 1929-1933) later United States Ambassador to Denmark (1933-1936)." I think we should not, but I welcome more discussion. —Markles 18:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree I feel that it has historic relevance Gang14 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think that unless a Congresswoman goes on to become a Senator, or a high-ranking government official, we don't need to list it. I don't think going on to be Ambassador to Denmark warrants noting. Nevermore | Talk 01:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But how do we decide what future service is relevant? Amb. to Denmark may be trivial, but Amb. to the UN isn't. My point is that we don't need to keep any future service at all. We should only keep events relevant to the person's service in the House. Otherwise, we'll have to keep permanent track of the biographies of 218+ people. Should we mention the woman who, as a sitting Rep., got elected/appointed to a prominent position? What about Geraldine Ferraro, the first (and so far only) woman nominated for Veep? She was a sitting Rep and retired her seat to run for Veep. —Markles 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Obviously Amb. to the UN and first woman to be nominated for the Vice Presidency is important and worth noting. My point is that Ambassador to Denmark and Ambassador to Italy don't really need noting. Those are the only two future positions on the list that I took issue with. Nevermore | Talk 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • But those are just arbitrary value judgments. Maybe you're right maybe you're not. What standard do we apply? Again, I suggest only include FIRST time events which occurred AS PART OF her Representative service. For example, Nancy Pelosi, first woman party leader leader and first woman Speaker.—Markles 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jill Long (D-IN 1989-1995) later Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development (1995-2001) That's the problem I'm talking about. Why is that at all mentioned in this article?—Markles 16:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ok i'll agree thats a bit much but things like Governor or Senator or Ambassador I feel warrant noting. Gang14 (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• So why do we include any of that stuff? Who cares if this Rep was later a Governor? This article is about Women in the House. We could also add other information, such as political background, height, marital status, and religion, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a collection of infinite information. I suggest that we only include information which is about her service in the House.—Markles 12:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think it does have relevance for women who have become Speaker, senators, cabinet members, ambassadors, etc. If she became Deputy Assistant Advisor for Corn and Peas to the mayor of Wheatshed, Iowa, I don't think it merits a mention.Hawk08210 (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Iowa and Mississippi

Forgive me, i don't know how to comment or discuss on an entry. I would like to find out about Mississippi. Iowa and Mississippi were both noted as having never elected a woman to national office or governorship. Iowa has elected a woman to Lieutenant Governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.249.67.193 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

·Iowa Elected two women to the US House of Representatives and Mississippi has not this list does not include state elected offices of Governor or Lt Governor. Mississippi has had a female lt Governor but it is not listed here because she did not serve in congress. Iowa and Mississippi have elected women to the US Senate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.119.118.50 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Katherine Gudger Langley.jpg

The image File:Katherine Gudger Langley.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Chisholm

Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman elected to Congress in 1968 is not on the list. She is also the first woman and the first African American to run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States. signed bwinslow—Preceding undated comment added by Bwinslow (talk • contribs) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're right! Do you know how to add her to the list? Be bold!—Markles 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancies

An argument has been made for retaining a pregnancy table/section because pregnancies are unique to women, but the section is undue in an article that should focus on women's legislative impact in the House. Breast cancer is also predominantly experienced by women, but a table including all the women that have had breast cancer and what their outcomes were would also be inappropriate here. If the topic of pregnant politicians is notable, create a separate article that can include Senators and politicians outside of the United States as well. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 09:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, that's the only section that's nearly fully sourced. If it was only referenced to their congressional biographies, official pages, or personal websites/self-published sources, I might agree. But until and unless it's split from here, the fact that national publications covered these, in some cases in depth, argues for their inclusion, and their delivery dates likely impacted their availability for voting. The lower minimum age for the House is likely the reason I haven't found a similar instance in the Senate, Supreme Court, or (still checking) Cabinet (yet), although if split I see no reason not to include other nations. Dru of Id (talk)

Gender of children

I removed this column in the table before, and see that it was added back because it was "important" (diff). I don't really see why it's important; it's trivia, as would be including the names of the kids or their astrological signs or whatever. This is Congress, not the House of Lords. Its members are not nobility, their "issue" are just American citizens like everyone else. The pregnancy might be somewhat relevant in so far as it affects the sitting Congresswoman, but the resulting children and any facts about them are not important. I think this column should be removed again. SnowFire (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

1. The birth is the end of a pregnancy. The birth can result in one of several outcomes: a baby boy, a baby girl, or multiple children. Therefore, in order to fully characterize the pregnancy, I think the gender of the baby is relevant.
2. I am completely lost vis a vis the arguments of nobility. How does mentioning the gender of the baby assign it any form of nobility?
3. Naming the baby has nothing to do with the pregnancy and nobody has proposed to add the baby's names to the table, so I'm lost as to why this is being brought up as an argument. Same for the astrological sign.
4. Bottom line, if we are going to list the pregnancies, then I believe that in order to fully characterize the pregnancies it is important to mention what the pregnancy resulted in.

96.41.32.39 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are lots more outcomes. The child could be called Mary, Joseph, Matthew, or a million other names. The birth weight can be a whole range of outcomes. The type of delivery can change (natural / Caesarean). Which hospital was it delivered at? I don't see why gender is any less trivial than these other facets. It certainly wouldn't affect a Congressperson's conduct, how much time they spend away from the Chamber, etc.

For nobility, gender of the child actually CAN matter, so I wouldn't complain there. For example, Edward VI being a male child displaced his half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth from the line of succession under English succession rules. This isn't relevant unless someone is invested as Duke of Arkansas or something, though.

I don't believe there's any need or cause to "fully characterize" these pregnancies, basically. In the case of the child being independently notable on Wikipedia, it would be fine to include a link to their article; that's about it. SnowFire (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

All those other factors you listed (name of child, what hospital the delivery took place, etc.) are the personal choice of the mother, and hence not encyclopedic (the medical procedure used may not be a choice, but it is personal and not encyclopedic). The gender of the baby is not personal, and hence, is encyclopedic (in my opinion).

I'm not going to respond to your nobility arguments, because frankly, I don't see how they apply to this discussion.

The goal of the encyclopedia is to provide full and complete information, not to be a link farm. Therefore, if we can fully characterize something, we should fully characterize it.

96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we just don't agree on how important / pivotal / "encyclopedic" this fact is.

I dropped off a request at WP:3O for a third opinion, if you don't mind. SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind more opinions, but I would say that unless there is a WP:BLP concern, and the information that is to be included is in line with Wikipedia's 5 pillars, I think we should err on the side of calling the information "encyclopedic" rather than err on the side of calling the information "not encyclopedic". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: I don't see how the gender of the baby is at all relevant to the topic of the page. The fact that they are pregnant could have implications on their membership to the House, but the gender does not and should be relegated to the page about each individual woman. Nihlus 21:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. If you agree that the gender of the baby is encyclopedic, I don't see why you don't agree that it belongs in the list of pregnancies. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The pregnancies are something that could (and do) affect a woman's time in office; that being said, I'm not 100% sold on its inclusion. However, the gender of the baby as nothing to do with the House of Representatives but does have a lot to do with their personal lives. This is why I believe the inclusion on their individual articles is sufficient in discussing it. Nihlus 09:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a reasonable assessment. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Pregnancy does not affect time on office. It’s the months following a successful pregnancy that affects time in office. And, it affects both mothers and fathers. Why is this section relevant? What is it’s purpose? AntFitch (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dividing this article

It maybe time to consider subdividing this article. The list of women who have served in the House of Representatives is difficult to edit and read because of its length. Having articles that only cover particular eras might be more manageable. Knope7 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, especially with all the new female members coming in 2019. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of having different articles for different eras, why not just subdivide the list of female Representatives by era within the existing article? For example, we could have sections for Representatives whose initial term began during each period of congressional apportionment of representatives among the states, so there would be the following lists of female Representatives within the article:

• Those whose initial term commenced between March 4, 1913 and January 2, 1945 (yes, Congress failed to reapportion representatives among the states after the 1920 and 1930 Censuses and was two years late in doing so after the 1940 Census)
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1945 and January 2, 1953
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1953 and January 2, 1963
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1963 and January 2, 1973
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1973 and January 2, 1983
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1983 and January 2, 1993
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1993 and January 2, 2003
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 2003 and January 2, 2013
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 2013 and January 2, 2023

That way, we can keep all of this related information in a single article while making editing far easier. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I just cut the list to those served in the 20th century. Female Congressmembers are no longer a novelty in the 21st century like they were a century ago. Over a HUNDRED members!!! This is a good thing. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want to have an unwieldly list of hundreds of women?

I tried to cut down a humongous list of women in congress (there are hundreds now) but AuH2ORepublican reverted me. The simple fact is, is you either have the list as a list, or you cut down the fancy schmancy table with pictures to a reasonable level. Should we limit the table to the 20th century?

or B. have a simple list with two or more collums? I'll repeat my changes is nobody gives a decent reason for the status quo in a couple of days.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79, that's not how things are done. If you wish to delete an article, or to dramatically change its scope so as to make it inconsistent with its title, you need to obtain consensus from the editing community.

You are correct that the list on the article is long, and that it makes it unwieldy to edit it (since one has to scroll down hundreds of names before getting to the Representative whose entry requires editing). But that does not, by itself, mean that female members of the U.S. House of Representatives are not noteworthy. If a consensus develops to the effect that society can declare victory and that women no longer face hurdles in getting elected to Congress, and thus that female Representatives no longer are noteworthy, then the editing community, as a whole, will decide what year should be the cut-off for the noteworthiness of female members of Congress. Then, and only then, should the article's name be modified to denote that only female Representatives who commenced serving prior to year X will be included in the article, and the names of congresswomen who commenced serving after such date be deleted.

My personal opinion is that an article that comprehensively lists female members of the U.S. House of Representatives continues to be necessary and noteworthy. As I wrote above, the unwieldiness in editing the article can be remedied by breaking down the list into smaller lists (by time period) within the same article. My suggestion would be to have sections for Representatives whose initial term began during each period of congressional apportionment of representatives among the states, so there would be the following lists of female Representatives within the article:

• Those whose initial term commenced between March 4, 1913 and March 3, 1933
• Those whose initial term commenced between March 4, 1933 and January 2, 1943
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1943 and January 2, 1953
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1953 and January 2, 1963
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1963 and January 2, 1973
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1973 and January 2, 1983
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1983 and January 2, 1993
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 1993 and January 2, 2003
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 2003 and January 2, 2013
• Those whose initial term commenced between January 3, 2013 and January 2, 2023

That way, we can keep all of this related information in a single article while making editing far easier, with much less scrolling. What do other editors think? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hiding portions of the list would be an improvement over the status quo, but this problem isn't going to get better. "List" isn't in the title of this article. The current title suggests that it is supposed to be more than a collection of names. Any other prose is getting lost in the large size. At over 162,00 bytes, this page is unwieldy and is going to be hard for some readers to load and navigate. My two preferred options would be as follows: 1) Leave this as an article about women in the United States House of Representative and create two new articles, one "List of Women in the United States House of Representatives 1787-2001" and the other "List of Women in the United States House of Representatives 2001-present" (The years are not as important as the idea of dividing into 3 separate articles), or 2) Make this "Women in the United States House of Representatives 1787-2001" and create a new article "Women in the United States House of Representatives 2001-present."Knope7 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I would propose keeping the list as it currently is. It has worked for many years, so there is no need to change it. However, if it did need to be changed I would recommend doing those from 1900-50, 1950-2000 and 2000-2050. 62.6.52.8 (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have grouped the female members by apportionment period in which they commenced serving (the apportionment periods are listed above), which is less arbitrary than 50-year chunks and has the additional advantage of reducing the number of entries through which one needs to scroll before editing a particular entry (or, in case of the group of members who commenced serving on or after January 3, 2013 through the present, when one needs to add a new entry). The most recent period has quite a few entries, and I expect that it will have quite a few more prior to January 3, 2023 (when the next apportionment period begins and a new group is formed), but it is markedly easier to navigate through it than it was when one had to start scrolling from members first elected over a century ago.

I hope that this new format is satisfactory to those who pointed out (correctly) that the list had become unwieldy, and that this useful list may be preserved in the article. I welcome any improvements that editors may make. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Mary Gay Scanlon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ideological article

If there is an article about women there should also be about blacks, or people with brown eyes, blonde hair, about height, or any difference. Even an article describing how many men are in the Congress. I would propose to maintain only the article about the Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.96.246 (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an ignorant comment. The reason men or Caucasians don't have separate articles listing them for each house of Congress is because white men have always had the opportunity to run for office and be elected without judgment in the history of the US. Making such a list would be incredibly long and cumbersome, not to mention a disservice to women and minorities who barely make a dent in the diversity of the US Congress, and who have had a much harder time even having a chance to run for office. There are already separate articles listing congresspeople of minority races since there have been very few to have run and win a seat in Congress. Non-white men didn't have the right to vote until 1870, and even then their right wasn't fully protected until 1965. Women didn't obtain their right to vote until 1920. That is why women and minorities deserve their own pages listing their congressional service, and why pages don't exist for people of various eye colors, hair colors, or height. Civilbeegee (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Separate list for current female members?

There has been a lot of discussion on this board about the growing length of this article that that it is becoming increasingly unwieldy and hard to edit. I would suggest two separate lists: one for former female members and one for current members. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Mary Gay Scalon, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Veronica Escobar (cropped square).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Veronica Escobar (cropped square).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

101 women?

I count 101 women currently serving on the chartOfficerCow (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

New women elected

when will the women elected in 2020 be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.119.118.50 (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What is going on with the table dispute here?

People are reverting back and forth tens of kilobytes at a time - what's happening? please explain OfficerCow (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Claudia Tenney

Situation involving Claudia Tenney is it appears she will be serving in Congress once again in the future pending a lawsuit over absentee ballots. However if the lawsuit is tossed out, or is ruled in her favor then she will once again be serving in Congress. Any chance to mention this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.10.28.6 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Until Tenney becomes a member-elect (by the race being called, or Brindisi conceding, or the state certifying her as the winner), there is nothing to say in this article. If and when she becomes a member-elect, her current entry (in the section on women who were first seated from 2013 to the present) should have a footnote attached explaining that she has been elected for a new term expected to commence on January 3, 2021; and once she is seated, the footnote should be removed and a new row reading "January 3, 2021 to present" should be added. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Congressional Portaits

When will the offical congreesional portraits of the members elected in 2020 be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.119.118.50 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tulsi Gabbard, official portrait, 113th Congress (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

122 current women

i have counted 122 current women instead of 118

352 women have served instead of 345

please leave the number at 352 women have served since 1917. putting 345 just confuses people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.119.118.50 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is misleading to say 352 when 7 of them were not voting members; saying 345 Representatives plus 7 non-voting members confuses no one. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What ever you say about it not confusing no one. you must be a young man with no sympathy for the elderly. i know several men and women who are 70 or older who says it confuses them. just because they are non-voting members does not mean anything they are still members of congress and you can not count.

I also see that your username says republican so that explains you reasoning

You really should sign your comments, particularly when engaging in ad hominem criticisms (which, as you probably know, are not permitted). And you certainly shouldn't end your comment with someone else's signature. I took the liberty of removing my signature that you placed at the end of your latest (ungrammatical) comment. The end of your comment is where *your* signature goes, not the signature of the editor that you are attacking.

Setting aside your latest behavior, which calls into question whether you should be editing Wikipedia (particularly in English), please note that, while a delegate is a member of the House of Representatives, she is *not* a Representative. Thus, if you include delegates in a count of Representatives, you would be providing false information, which, as you must know, is against the rules. You can't publish a lie in an attempt at making something straightforward less "confusing" to you. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Widow's Succession

There is a real possibility that the widow of Luke Letlow, who died before he could take his seat, could win the special election in LA05 to fill the seat. So I feel it's important to clear things up before hand if that result does happen. Because Letlow died before he could take his seat, his widow should not be listed with Doris Matsui as an example of Widows succession because she is not succeeding her husband, she would be succeeding Ralph Abraham. Now if she wins, there could be note that references her husband in some way, but it should not say she succeeded her husband because that is factually false nor should be counted as widows succession. Further, any Rep who's hudband died in office but they did not succeed them should have no reference claiming they succeeded them. For example, if the line of reps goes like this "Husband to New Rep to Widow", do not list them as succeding their husbands because as I mentioned before, they aren't succeeding them, they are succeeding someone who succeed their husband.-RaySwifty18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaySwifty18 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that saying that a person "succeeded" her husband implies that she served immediately after him, and that it would be misleading to use such term when someone else served after the husband and before the wife/widow. But why remove factual, non-misleading statements about a representative having served in the same seat as her husband "but did not immediately succeed him"? And why would you object, if Mrs. Letlow is elected to the seat left vacant by her husband's death, to a footnote being included that notes that she is serving in a seat left vacant when her husband, wo was the representative-elect in that district, died? Those footnotes are *not* examples of "Widow's Succession," and are not labeled as such; they merely are interesting information regarding the member being part of a political family. So while Tsongas and (potentially) Letlow should not be listed as examples of Widow's Succession, there is nothing wrong with their entries noting that their respective husbands previously were elected in the district. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

First Latina elected

So who was the first Hispanic/Latina woman elected to the House and to Congress? Is it Barbara Vucanovich or Ileana Ros-Lehtinen? If it is Vucanovich so why so many respectable secondary sources and even Congress database itself keeps insisting that it was Ros-Lehtinen? What is the truth and how it should be verified?

Add some links to it for perspective. LocGov; NBC; NPR; CAWP; News4jax.com; NFRW; Sheshouldrun; Sheshouldrun; Hispanic Network; RepresentWomen etc; and from Congress as institution LordTort (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It was probably because Barbara Vucanovich, who had partial Mexican-American heritage, did not join the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and thus she was left out of many lists of Hispanic members of Congress. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican Thank you for responding and clarification on this issue LordTort (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Graciepfost.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Newly Elected women in 2022

I hope that the women who were elected in 2022 will be added soon. and member like Elaine Luria who lost election need to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.119.106.175 (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Female Representatives who lost reelection (or didn't run again) will have their entries updated when they leave Congress (whether when their term ends or upon prior resignation (or, God forbid, death). Newly elected women should be added in a "Representatives-elect" section of the article, as they won't be taking office until January 3. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Delia Ramirez Campaign Photo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)