Talk:Women in the United States Senate

Timeline

Could the list of female senators could be turned into a timeline, like List of popes (graphical)? I think this would illustrate rather well the gaps, when there were concurrent female senators, and the recent upsurge in female representation. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I made one and played around with the numbers a bit, such as the start and end points. If anyone thinks they can improve on it and wants to toy around with it, feel free. Vic Troy 06:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Religion

"Religion" (like other personal information such as "marital status", "physical disabilities", and "sexual orientation"), is inappropriate to include in the context of professional information such as "party affiliation" and "education". Personal information is appropriately included in individual biographies.

Paravani (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Paravani

FL nominate

I think this article would be a good candidate for FL --192.8.222.82 (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Then nominate it.—Markles 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Group photo caption

An anonymous editor keeps changing the caption on the group photo to make Barbara Mikulski into a middle row. I think the previous caption, which put her in the front row (you know, where she is standing) was quite understandable. What the editor has failed to take into account is that if you look for a middle row, you will not find one. -Rrius (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the IP's contributions, which included a reference to Sen. Mikulski's height in the first sentence of the lead of her article, I no longer believe this a good faith edit. -Rrius (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's a GF edit, but I reverted it anyway. One person does not make for a good row and she fit nicely into the top row.—Markles 11:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The caption says that the photo is the one for the 111th Congress but it's actually still the one of the 110th. Panos75 (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the photo has been reverted to an earlier one. Either way, the caption definitely doesn't match the picture. I'll check the article history and see if I can figure it out. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I just got so caught up in trying to get the caption right (Gillibrand and Landrieu looked too similar at that resolution) that I forgot to change the file name. -Rrius (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Firsts and Onlys

Does anyone else find the sentence "In 2006, Claire McCaskill (D-MO) became the third by defeating Senator Jim Talent" to be an inappropriate and unnecessary addition to the section titled "Firsts and Onlys"? It is neither a first, nor an only. I am removing it. If there is strong desire to keep it, the title of the subsection should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.206.235 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

For people who follow the women's movement, the reference to Clarence Thomas. which I removed, might be very clear. But to the non-clued-in person who reads this article for enlightenment, the reference was totally meaningless. If the reference is to be used, then it should be cited to reliable sources. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source, which is given in the Year of the Woman article. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect info on Olympia Snowe.

Olympia Snowe resigned in protest of GOP policies nearly a year ago. The page needs to be changed to reflect that. Common knowledge doesn't require citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.37.180 (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Olympia Snowe never resigned from the Senate. She didn't run for re-election in 2012 and her term expired on January 3, 2013. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) should be added to the 'Firsts and onlies' section

Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) currently holds the title of being the first and only female African-American U.S. Senator to serve in the U.S. Senate. LeahBethM (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2013 (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:

• Flag of Mississippi (2001–2020).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

There is an awful lot of unsourced material. The article has been tagged. (Original research?) 74.67.45.185 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Portraits

The point of portraits in the article is to give the reader an idea of the senators' appearance. A photo that shows, for example, a relatively close view of Kelly Ayotte's face is more effective in achieving that than one in which her face is but a small component of a photo showing her full torso and her hands resting on her knee. I don't know who cropped the photos in March, and had gotten so used to them that I had forgotten how the photos had looked before then. I think that portraits in similar articles focus on the legislator's face, and question why, in an article about female senators, it is so important to show their bodies.

Could someone explain what's wrong with the cropped photos? Unless there's a consensus in favor of showing full torsos, I think that the article should keep portraits that focus on the face of each senator. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"Appointment" doesn't mean "the date on which Senate service commences"

@Where is Matt?: Martha McSally was appointed to the Senate in December 2018, so it is incorrect to say that it was her "appointment" that increased the number of women in the Senate; the number of women in the Senate didn't increase until he was sworn in on January 3, 2019, which is when *her Senate service began. I understand that the graph describes the date on which an appointed senator commences her service as the date of the "appointment," but that is just as wrong for the others as it is for McSally; appointed senators are never sworn in until at least a few days following their appointment, even in the Jet Era (as we were reminded recently when Gov. Newsom appointed Laphonza Butler on October 1 and she wasn't sworn in until October 3.

I get that we want to be consistent when describing the "Events" that result in an i crease or decrease in the number of female senators, but we also want to be correct. Here's my proposal:

1. The "Event" that results in a new woman in the Senate should be described as, for example:

"Barbara Boxer begins service following election"; or

"Lisa Murkowski begins service following appointment"

2. The event that results in one fewer female senator should be described as, for example:

"End of Elizabeth Dole's elected term in office" [Note: There currently is a major inconsistency in the histograph, with many of these identical events described as "ends service" and many others as "retired"];

"End of Jean Carnahan's appointed term in office";

"Death of Dianne Feinstein";

"Resignation by Hillary Clinton prior to the end of her elected term" [Note: This language should also apply to early resignations by elected senators in order to allow their successor to get a few days of extra seniority, as in the case of Hazel Abel]; or

"Resignation by Vera C. Bushfield prior to the end of her appointed term" [Note: Bushfield resigned a few days earlier than the term of her appointment, which was supposed to last until January 3]

AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The date of an appointment, as well as the date of an election, is irrelevant for when service begins. We use "service begins" to indicate the default process that the service began because the senator was elected. If the senator was not elected, we indicate "appointment". Again, the date of the appointment is just as irrelevant as the date of the election.

As for the termination, we use "ends service" to indicate loss of an election. "Retired" means that the senator chose not to run for reelection. "Appointment ends" indicates that the senator never won an election (regardless if they tried to run for a full term).

We can certainly add a few words on the top or bottom of the histogram to indicate all those subtleties in the language. I thought those subtleties were clear, but if you think they are not, we can add the clarification.

Where is Matt? (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly think that it would be clearer if we described the date on which an appointed senator was sworn in as that on which she "begins service following appointment" rather than merely " appointed" (which normally is understood as the date on which the governor appointed her). And I also think that the terms of art used within the histograph should match those used in the rest of the article: In the main table of senators, the column listing the reasons for leaving the Senate indeed uses "Retired" to describe a senator who did not seek reelection (as opposed to, say, "lost reelection" for those who ran but lost the general), but her "retirement" does not describe the *date* on which her service ended (anymore than "lost reelection" describes her last day in office), but merely the reason why she stopped serving. That is why I believe that it would be clearer and more consistent with the entire article to describe the "event" marking a senator's last day in office as "end of [her] elected term in office" or "end of [her] appointed term in office" and to differentiate those events caused by the mere passage of time (even if stemming from a prior decision) from decisions by the senators that themselves cause the end of her service (such as "resignation prior to the end of her elected term").

Do you have any objection to my making the clarifying changes that I described above? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Rather than adding clarification to each and every entry (and thereby making each entry more cumbersome), I think a better approach is to add a note at the beginning, as I have done here. Feel free to tweak the language.

As for the exit dates, I think it should be pretty clear that retirement means the senator left w/o losing an election, so I don't think additional clarification is needed. Death is self-explanatory, appointment ends when a new senator is sworn in to replace the appointed senator, and service ends for senators who lost re-election.

Where is Matt? (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Rebecca Larimer Felton

I see in list of female senators, it says RLF served for 49 days, but I thought she only served one day. NathanBru (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

from the time of her appointment to the time of the swearing in of the subsequent senator was 49 days, but the Senate was only actually in session for one day during that period, which is why she is considered to only have “served” for one day Griffindaly (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)