This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
While Asia is a huge continent that includes the mostly Arab, Turkish and Persian region known as the Middle East, the term "Asian American," as used in the United States, does not include people of Arab, Turkish or Persian ancestry. In particular, Arab Americans are not included within the category of "Asian Americans" for purposes of the U.S. Census, much less in common parlance in the United States. Why were members of Congress of Lebanese descent and of Palestinian descent added to this page? Certainly a case can be made that there should be a page entitled List of Arab Americans and Middle-Eastern Americans in the United States Congress, but Lebanese Americans and Palestinian Americans are not "Asian Americans" as the term is used by the U.S. government, by Asian-American groups or by Americans in general.
I strongly recommend creating a page entitled "List of Arab Americans and Middle-Eastern Americans in the United States Congress" and moving Lebanese-American and Palestinian-American members of Congress to such article, but such members do not belong in an article reserved for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. If there is a consensus to create such new article, I will wait for its creation and the migration of the aforementioned entries on Lebanese and Palestinian Americans to it before deleting such non-Asian-American entries. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the addition of Lebanese and Palestinian Americans to this page was made, en masse, by the same editor who, in his ignorance, and without discussing the issue in the talk page, edited the page on "Asian Americans" to falsely claim that the term includes persons of "West Asian" ancestry. I already have corrected the Asian Americans page, but will give the editor until Tuesday to create a page entitled "List of Arab Americans and Middle-Eastern Americans in the United States Congress" for him to migrate the information that he added improperly to this article. While his edit was misguided, I know that it was time-consuming, so I'll give him the courtesy of a three-day period to create an article to present information that is notable but is erroneous in its current location. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some good points. "Western Asia" is not a common term for that region ("limited use"), which is more commonly referred to as the Middle East, so the suggestion is a good one. A separate list article would be an improvement here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It appears that Resident Commissioner Joaquín Miguel Elizalde does not have any Asian or Pacific Islands ancestry. He was a "Spanish Filipino," which was the term used to describe persons of Spanish ancestry who were born in the Philippines. I knew that his mother was from Spain, as was his paternal grandfather, but thought that maybe his paternal grandmother may have had Native Filipino (or other Asian or Pacific Islander) ancestry. However, this article (in Spanish) about Joaquín Miguel Elizalde's brother, musician Federico "Fred" Elizalde, provides that both of their paternal grandparents came from Spain: https://www.tomajazz.com/web/?p=22701&print=print ("Era nieto de españoles por
parte paterna e hijo de española.").
Given that members of Congress from Hawaii whose ancestry is solely European (such as Henry Alexander Baldwin, grandson of Christian missionaries in Hawaii) are (correctly) excluded from the article on Asian Americans and Pacific Islands Americans in Congress even if their parents were born and raised in Hawaii, I believe that the 100% Spanish Joaquín Miguel Elizalde should be excluded from the list as well. He was a proud Filipino, but he was not of Asian or Pacific Islands descent.
For the reasons stated above, I am removing Elizalde's entry from the article. If anyone disagrees, please comment on this talk page so that the editing community can develop a consensus on this topic. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Akaka is noted as the "First Native Hawaiian elected to Congress". Robert William Wilcox was also elected to serve in Congress as a non-voting Delegate of the territory, so should that footnote be rephrased? KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct, that footnote is wrong, given that several Native Hawaaians served as Delegates (which are members of Congress) prior to Hawaii statehood. I'll clarify that Akaka was the first Native Hawaaian to serve as a *voting* member of Congress. Thanks for pointing this out. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
While I'm not sure Agpuh2's changes were necessary (the several congressional demographics lists were mostly reasonably consistent) they did look decent! I also disagree with Nnnou2's calling them a mess, but thanks Nevermore27 for your clearing of the overly specific state-wise firsts. But if Agpuh2's changes were reinstated here, they should be on the other articles as well, again removing the excessive firsts and restoring some of the removed notes. Thoughts? Also ping AuH2ORepublican. Reywas92Talk 07:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked for my opinion, here it is. I don't believe that providing specificity as to House district number or Senate class adds much to the article. No one cares about the Senate class except when the person is up for reelection, and even then they say "he's up in 2022," not "he's in Senate Class 3." The term becomes even more meaningless when talking about senators from the past--whether Senator Fong was from Class 1, 2 or 3 is absolutely irrelevant to a modern reader. I also note that the editor who made this change said that he was conforming the format to that of similar articles, but I can't recall any of the "list of members of congress" articles detailing Senate classes.
And while House district numbers do have more relevance to political conversation, their meaning largely disappears every ten years with each redistricting. A congressman may represent many different "districts" through the years, and it's not because he used to represent Sacramento and then moved to San Diego and later Bakersfield. In many states, district numbers change even when the general shape of the district doesn't, and I question how much value is added in providing details about the district numbers represented through the years. I do know that such additional infornation makes the article much longer and harder to update as things change. I also note that the editor who made this change said that he was conforming the format to that of similar articles, but the other "list of members of congress" articles that include both House and Senate members did not detail district numbers. (The specialized article on black Representatives does--which makes it a pain to update every redistricting, whether decenial or intradecade--and the specialized article on female representatives does for more recent representatives but not for all of them.)
Another change made was adding the number of days served by each member of Congress. I think that this is useful information, and that it is particularly valuable for persons who had interruptions in their congressional service. I do have one complaint and one concern about adding such column. First, for members of the House and Senate serving prior to the 20th Amendment, the automatic computation of days served usually is short by one day because terms began at the stroke of midnight on March 4 and ended at 11:59 p.m. and 59 seconds on March 3. For example, if the beginning of service is March 4, 1901 and the last day of service is March 3, 1907, this is reported as 5 years and 364 days instead of 6 years. This should be corrected. As for the concern, having an additional column makes each column thinner and, often, less easy to read. In my personal opinion, I think that the tradeoff is worth it, and that the days of service should be kept, albeit with a correction for members whose service ended on a March 3 at 11:59 p.m. and 59 seconds. (But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the editor who made this change said that he was conforming the format to that of similar articles, while in fact the only articles in which service time is given in years and days are those with specific sections for longest-serving members of Congress.)
Finally, with respect to the Notes section, I think that the are including far too many "historical firsts" (even after paring it of "first from X state" information) and other biographical information. In similar articles, this column typically provides the reason why the member left the House or Senate (e.g., lost renomination, died, retired to run for another office) and ancillary matters related to what he did after leaving office (e.g., "later served as Secretary of Education," or "later convicted of bribery"). Despite the claims of the editor that he merely was conforming the format to that of similar articles, that is not correct, since the article listing Hispanic or Latino members of Congres does not include "first Puerto Rican," "first Cuban-American," etc. in the Notes, the article on Native Americans in Congress does not include "first Powhatan," "first enrolled Cherokee," etc., and the article on Arab and Middle Eastern Americans in Congress does not note "first Assyrian American," "first Palestinian American," etc. Clicking on the "Asian of Pacific Islander ancestry" column allows the reader to group members by ancestry, and it would be easy to find the "first Vietnamese American," etc. But this article has differed from similar articles in that such historical first have long been included, and I would not recommend removing such information out of some duty to conformity. Maybe the text in the Notes section can be shortened by moving other biographical information (such as offices held prior to Congress) in a footnote after the name of the person rather than within the text of the Notes section; that's how the articles on Hispanic or Latino members and the articles on female senators and representatives do it. Another option is to limit the text within Notes to how they left office and ancillary information (when Harris resigns, it certainly should say that she resigned to become VP) but include a footnote in the Notes section with the historical first (in Harris's case, to read "first Indian-American senator"), which is how the article that lists black representatives handles historical firsts per state.
Regarding whether every article listing members of Congress by race, ethnicity, religion or sex should have exactly the same format, I disagree. Each article has a different origin and development, and there is no need to conform them for the sake of conformity. For example, the article listing black representatives has quirks and information that make it unique, and what works for it would not necessarily work for others. I would let each of those wonderfully different articles continue to develop on their own. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the changes that Agpuh2's added were unnecessary, didn't add anything to the article itself and were made for no apparent reason or consensus. The previous layout and information seems to have worked well for years and so didn't need changing. I agree with AuH2ORepublican about adding number of days served by each person though. Nnnou2 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican: I agree that Senate classes are unimportant to the page. Maybe congressional districts could be streamlined as well from their current state, but I believe they should be there. I do think historical firsts is an important thing to have however, and it's only on this page (and potentially Native Americans, as you noted) that it can seem overly cumbersome since AAPI covers many ethnicities. But honestly? That seems like a sacrifice worth making. Just my two cents. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nnnou2 Screw you for making me fix your attempt to do an end-run around consensus on fucking Christmas. You should be ashamed. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^^^Wow look at this response from Nevermore27. Appalling and disgraceful. I must point out that all historic firsts and information about each Senator and Member of Congress were already covered on the page as they were in a note by each person's name. I'm guessing Nevermore27 you didn't see that? Furthermore I kept many of the additions Agpuh2 from countries flags to tenure length. The only thing I reverted, since these bold edits were made on multiple pages without gaining any consensus or asking anyone if they wanted it, was to put the historic first information back into note form and go back to states rather than congressional districts. Nnnou2 (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to decide on your own how the page looks. Do not make your preferred changes again while we are in the middle of a discussion. @Reywas92:@AuH2ORepublican:Nevermore27 (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After your message earlier today, i'm wondering if I should get an administrator involved to be honest. I must point out that my original edit was putting the page back to how it originally looked, and had looked for years, before Agpuh2 made major changes to the article without first gaining consensus to do so or even discussing doing it on the talk page. I then incorporated nearly all of Agpuh2's changes to the article itself as they were useful including flags and length of service, the only part I didn't was the swapping of states represented to districts represented, for reasons outlined by AuH2ORepublican above and also because it wasn't needed. All of the information that Agpuh2 moved was already present in the page: [1]. Nevermore27you must gain consensus before you start making bold edits yourself especially as, until you reverted my edits, you had never edited this page before: [2], as what I did notice though is that you first reverted two of my edits at 05:35am & 05:37am, Agpuh2 then re-added his info to a sandbox at 05:42am: [3] before you then continued reverting my edits at 05:42am, so I'm wondering if you were Agpuh2?? Nnnou2 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this was petulent on both of your parts, neither of you should have being making edits after I started a discussion (not to mention you can undo multiple edits at once in no time...). I would say Senate classes are unimportant but House districts are reasonable if condensed and not split across multiple rows when renumbered. Length of service is fair to include, but would be better if the template can return years instead of days, which are abstract when in the thousands. For notes, the states firsts are absolutely unnecessary, but it's fair to include first of X nationality (even if it's sorted chronologially anyway). Why they left office and other offices – if relevant – should be in the notes column; it's not so crowded to require them buried into a footnote. I'd prefer interarticle consistency but some variations are fine! Reywas92Talk 02:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all information related to why they left office should be kept in the notes section. I don't think house districts are needed as if we look at neighbouring articles: Arab and Middle Eatern [4], Latino and Hispanic [5], Native Americans [6] & LGBT [7] all they say is what state they represented and until Agpuh2 decided to change it all there had never been any complaints etc as i've looked through the history and talk page of each. Also as if we look at all pages, including Women in Senate [8] & Women in Congress [9] you will see in the footnote section it has all the information not related to why they left office e.g Succeeded husband. Daughter of X. First Cuban elected to Congress etc. Currently this article includes the first of X nationality, but Agpuh2 once again decided to make changes and put them in the note section which is for why the politician left office. Nnnou2 (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just coming in here to ask if all of these flags are really necessary? They're so busy and messy and I find them to be unnecessary per WP:FLAG. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Especially under ethnicity, where equating someone's ethnic background to a specific nationality is... not accurate at best. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really interesting point Nevermore27 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the problem isn't the use of flags (which communicate the information more quickly and make the article more attractive) but the use of the word "ethnicity" instead of "ancestry." For example, a person whose grandparents were from the Philippines could have any number of different ethnicities, and "Filipino" wouldn't be one of them, but he also could be described uncontroversially as having *Filipino ancestry*. The same would be true for Chinese Americans, Thai Americans, Taiwanese Americans, etc. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a separate issue but the issue is the flag itself to me. Linking someone who's Hawaiian to the flag of a state is wrong. Linking some Chamorros to the Guam flag and some the the CNMI flag is inconsistent and wrong. Linking Carolinians to the FSM flag is wrong. If this page included Kurds, would we divine some WP:SPECULATIONorWP:SYNTH out of thin air as to which Kurdish regional flag to use? It's WP:OR, as stated, I'm pretty sure it fails under WP:FLAG regardless. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discourse generated by the apparent randomness of my changes, I figured I would provide my justifications for the different edits. Underlying the entire endeavor was the Wiki-policy Be Bold. Prior to the 2020 elections, I had noticed inconsistencies across the various pages that have been discussed in layout of the tables as well as the type of content included. This struck me as an issue worth correcting, and as the Be Bold policy states "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it". Clearly, there has been debate now on this page on whether that was in fact an issue. Clearly, I would argue that it was. A table is a tool of visual storytelling, meant to be read left to right when using English text. So a page like Women in the United States Senate identifying part last, as well as the eyes naturally being drawn to color, struck me as a confusing ordering for a table. Similarly, the List of Mormon members of the United States Congress presenting the metacolor background of the party and the name of the party of the member in different columns is redundant information. Examining the different pages, I saw several such examples (which will be listed below) that made me want to create a standard for these types of pages. I drew from existing quirks on these pages and other related pages related to US Congressmembers to build a standard (not to "conform" to any particular page, which I did not claim to do).
Table Headers": From left to right, I thought it made most sense to begin the information most relevant to the person's inclusion on the pages. So that translates to the portrait, name, and year of birth/death of the given MoC, followed by their nationality or ethnicity, then matters of the political career (their party, where they represented, then tenure), and ending with notes. This presents a clear order of information that is easy to read. Columns that exist on similar pages, such as "Congress", "Entered", "former slave", and so on, were either removed or placed in to simplify the table format. It is largely consistent with the layout given in pages like the ones for members who are BuddhistorJewish. The concept of length of tenure was taken from the Women in the United States Senate page, but the specific formating used in List of appointed United States senators page. How to correct the end date of service for when members left on March 3 right before midnight with dates might be a simple as using Template:dts|format=mdy|3|3|18xx for end date and Template:ayd|3|4|18yy|3|4|18xx.
Districts: For members of the house, I find the actual seat they represent to be highly relevant to these pages. As an example, the interests that a member of congress with a district in southern Florida solely that is largely Miami-Dade or Broward (a district like FL-26) represents is different than someone representing a district that's much more focused on agricultural produce (such as FL-15). This is also information already given on pages like Women in the United States House of RepresentativesorList of African-American United States Representatives. Per the concern that geography that a numeric numbering of district contains changes, that is the point of linking to the specific page on that district which presents the historic geographic boundaries. As per the decennial redistricting requiring some edits once a decade, just perusing the tables I had made (all compiled in my sandbox) it seems that California is the main offender for changing up district numbers or reapportionment creating or eliminating districts. Largely, the numerical district a member represents is consistent even if the geographic boundaries change. And the update required is less frequent than something like mentioning the Congress a member served in (such as what is done in List of African-American United States Representatives).
Notes: Yeah, I agree that got bloated. I had originally intended to have map svgs such as the ones shown below to convey many of the "first by state/district" information, but I could not figure out how to create them so decided to convey that information textually. My interest was less aimed at who the first person by state to achieve information, but rather which state has had that type of representation. Much of the specificity was Additionally, since how each member left the chamber was given it was a small leap to think that any special circumstances for how they entered the office (appointment, special election, succeeding a relative) was relevant. Also, some pages add interconnectivity between pages by having links to the elections that a senator lost reelection included, so to increase interconnectivity I just apply any unsuccessful reelection bid as well as to connection deaths while in office to the relevant pages. Additional columns such as Former Slave made sent to include here as that is limited to a very few representatives and one senator. The decision to have a notes column instead of a footnotes section is derived from seeing the bulk of text given in notes section of the List of African-American United States senators page. There is clearly a bulk of text there for just 10 senators, which would present obvious issues for any pages that are significantly longer, and the distance from the individual's row is a poor way to convey this information.
This map shows which states have had a female senator via party.
Democrat(s)
Republican(s)
Both a Democrat and a Republican
Number of female senators by state:
1
2
3
Senator class: This is a topic that I am surprised was discussed as much, so I am giving it its own section instead of including it in the Miscellaneous. This was based on the List of appointed United States senators page which does include that information. I found it an easy shorthand for when this senator would have been up for election, which readers with some historical knowledge could use to decipher the political environments they had to work against. It is also an enduring piece of information, automatically saying whether the election takes place in year n/n+2/n+4 (opposed to saying when their next reelection specifically is). And for consistency, it was applied backward to all previously serving senators. Ultimately, I could take it or leave it.
Miscellaneous: Small edits that were made that did not generate conversation but probably would have been kept if applied individually: Choosing 'Incumbent' instead of 'Present' in columns for current term end dates. Flags for states (I take the point about associating ethnicity with a nation, which I had not carefully considered prior) which are just more visually dynamic than plain text. Making sure that the year of birth and death is br'd and Template:small consistently. Adding ending punctuation to notes and standardizing capitalization and picking between re-election and reelection. Consistent photo size and removing weird cropping. Selecting one photo to represent a member if they appear across different articles (example Judy Chu in Women in the House and this AAPI page) with differences made when possible for Rep and Sen portraits if a member switched chambers. Also making sure each photo has a caption that says "Rep./Sen. so-and-so". Picking one color of shading to represent incumbents (between e0e0e0e and ccc).
Hopefully, this discussion sufficiently explains why edits were made (again, in the spirit of WP "Be Bold"). I appreciate that some of the ideas have been discussed with the length of service in particular being popular. All my edits were done in good faith, so I am sorry to see that some of the discussion became acrimonious at certain points. And to clarify, I am not Nevermore27 and they are not me. We met on a different platform and Nevermore is a friend a lite-Wiki mentor (though he was uninvolved entirely with my work on these pages). Nevermore27 came to this page after I mentioned to him my disappointment on my edits being reverted and intent to improve my sandbox over time to something more streamlined (hence me re-adding it to my sandbox). I look forward to more productive conversations Nnnou2AuH2ORepublicanNevermore27Reywas92Therequiembellishere
It seems like the major focus of this WP:EDITWAR is where to put the notes marking historical firsts. Since this article covers multiple ethnicities rather than another more singular characteristic (like African-American or sexual orientation), some have the view that putting in the Notes column is cumbersome and prefer to put them in a reference. I disagree, I think having them readily visible in the table itself is preferable. So the question is this: TableorReference?Nevermore27 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Examples are "First person of [x heritage] elected to the U.S. Congress" or "Won special election." or "Appointed by [y]."
It should be in reference as if we look at neighbouring articles for example Latino and Hispanic [10], Women in Senate [11] & Women in Congress [12] all the information related to historical first etc are in reference format and until Agpuh2, and then yourself decided to change it all there had never been any complaints etc as i've looked through the history and talk page of each. A glance over the footnote section shows all the information not related to why they left office e.g Succeeded husband. Daughter of X. First Cuban elected to Congress etc and also includes the first of X nationality, but Agpuh2, and then Nevermore27, once again decided to make changes and put them in the note section which is for why the politician left office. Nnnou2 (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's directly relevant content, it should be prominent, not buried in the footnotes. The footnotes in the Hispanics article are aften are random fun facts about the person that shouldn't be mentioned at all, but I don't see why we should have subsequent offices in the table but prior offices in the footnotes. Looking at the Women in the House, it seems odd to have a wide column only for why they left office, but forcing the other relevant notes like firsts and oldest/youngest to the bottom of the page: these should be integrated into the table. Reywas92Talk 17:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that subsequent offices should not be given more prominence than prior offices, and that if such offices are prominent enough to be mentioned that they should be in a footnote, but if the reason for leaving the House or Senate was to run for or commence serving in some other office then that should be mentioned in the Notes column (since there's a difference between "retiring" (not seeking reelection) to go home or to leave politics and "retiring" to run for some other office instead).
As for historical firsts (first Vietnamese, first Chinese, etc.), I personally do not believe that it is necessary to list that separately because one can always click on "Ethnicity" and it will list members chronologically by ethnicity, but the article has long listed such firsts, and I assume that some readers like them, so I will not advocate for their removal. But I think that they should be kept in footnotes so as not to clutter the notes column. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the "Notes" column is just going to be reserved for the manner in which a politician leaves office "Died, resigned, lost reelection", etc. like some would have it, then it should just be changed to "manner of departure" instead of "notes". For a page titled "List of AAPI in Congress", I think historic firsts are very relevant! Nevermore27 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe i'm saying this but Nevermore27 does raise an interesting point. Maybe Notes should be swapped to Manner or Reason for departure, i'd support that. Nnnou2 (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the direction I was trying for lol. I think Notes should be for....notes. And historical firsts are clearly a note. And I think they should be in the body of the article and not footnotes. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the articles listing women in the House and Senate labels such column as "Leaves for"; "Manner of Departure" sounds much better. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Table, if I'm understanding this correctly. There's some terminology confusion here between references and footnotes: references are solely for citing facts to ensure verifiability, whereas footnotes are for minor pieces of information not important enough for the body. This article currently mixes them, which is not good practice; I'd suggest converting the footnotes to {{efn}} and giving them their own section. I think firsts such as e.g. first Vietnamese American in Congress are clearly WP:DUE weight in an article about Asian Americans in Congress and should be included in the notes section rather than relegated to the footnotes. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 10:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is closed, and if we're counting votes, it seems like the majority of those involved believe that historic firsts are directly relevant content and should be included in the table. In other words, notes are notes. I will implement this change and hopefully it will be respected this time. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, a consensus is not merely "counting votes" and saying "3 is more than 2," (see WP:Consensus), but given the lack of interest that the editing community has shown for the article, I'm not going to continue to waste time on this issue. For the record, though, I think that having ridiculously long columns on the right just to say that someone was the first Thai American elected to the Senate (which could be ascertained simply by clicking on the "ancestry" column) makes the article less readable, and that the same prominence could be given to such fact in a footnote without making each row so long (with the portrait looking like a tiny insert in the middle of a long, white or gray rectangle). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I have different definitions of "ridiculously long". Also, you're ignoring editors involved in the initial discussion, which puts the "vote" as it were something closer to 5-2. Nevermore27 (talk)
Also more of an aside but why is the picture more important than historical information about a MoC's service? Just wondering. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this RtC, three editors, including you, voted for the tiny photo and long, skinny notes column (tripling the number of rows in each entry, and two (including me) voted for keeping the photos easily visible and placing the "firsts" info in footnotes. 3-2 is not 5-2, and, more to the ooint, it's not a consensus. But, as I said, I'm not going to keep fighting with you about this anymore, since obviously you're just going to keep edit-warring until you get your way. That's not how controversies are resolved on Wikipedia, as I'm sure that you'll find out if you do that to more litigious editors. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AuH2ORepublican that no consensus was gained and it certainly wasn't 5-2. Furthermore, the editor who made the original edits, Agpuh2, who changed the article in the first place, has not edited since December 2020 and as I previously stated I believe that Nevermore27 and Agpuh2 are the same person, especially as Agpuh2 stated on the talk page that you "knew" each other.
If you want to make a formal accusation about me and Agpuh being sock puppets for each other I'm sure there's a place for you to do that. I welcome it. @Nnnou2:Nevermore27 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also until Agpuh2's additions were reverted in December 2020, Nevermore27 had only edited this article once: [13] (January 2019) since the article was first created in August 2005, and seemed to have no problem with the layout then, but as soon as his "friends" edits were reverted he suddenly started editing after nearly two years since his last edit to the page.
I must also point out that one of the main reasons to keep it in the format it has been like for years is that is extremely similar to the neighbouring articles related to hispanic/latino, arab, native american etc articles on members of congress. Also, as AuH2ORepublican has pointed out, the columns are sortable, so if you wanted to know who was the first person of Chinese descent or Japanese descent elected to Congress you are able to sort it and find out. In order to rectify this I believe we should take Nevermore27's suggestion, made previously on the talk page, to change the notes section to manner or reason for departure, therefore solving this problem. Maybe we could also swap the references for footnotes: {{efn}}, as a previous editor suggested. Nnnou2 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My day-to-day life became much busier once my winter break ended. Also, based on the reception my edits received back in December, from you in particular, it should be pretty understandable if I choose not to be an active participant in the Wiki community. Agpuh2 (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why my edit history of the page is relevant. Agpuh was attempting to make improvements to the page and you are imposing a nonsensical worldview.
I think when y'all are talking about "ridiculously long" notes, you're referring to Agpuh2's initial edit, which was...zealous. As I was advising him on his project I didn't see the final product and if I had, I wouldn't have liked it either. But I have been attempting to make compromises with y'all since the very first, and instead of meeting in the middle between the initial edit and your preferred version and trying to find a compromise, you're being obstinate. We're all trying to make Wikipedia better (I hope), and it's frustrating that this keeps happening. the pictures aren't more important than the info. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted one more compromise, just in the Senate section for now, based on @Sdkb:'s suggestion and @Nnnou2:'s seeming openness to it. Hopefully this can be settled on. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this at all. Put the notes in the notes section! Burying them is absurd. There is no reason to limit notes to actually only be why they left office. Stupid to highlight "Retired", "Retired", "Lost reelection" but then stick more relevant information about the individuals in the footnotes. If the sortability of ethnicity also indicates who the first people are, then don't put it in prose at all. Reywas92Talk 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity is fully sortable within the Senate, House and Delegates tables, respectively. The only "firsts" that could not be gleaned simple by clicking on ethnicity is whether a person who is the first, for example, Chinese to be elected to the House was also the first Chinese to be elected to Congress.
Personally, I don't think that separately noting "ancestry firsts" is necessary, but, as I wrote in a prior discussion, I wouldn't advocate for their elimination because such info has been part of this particular article (contra, for example, the articles on Hispanic/Latino members of Congress and on Native American members of Congress) for many years, so readers are used to seeing it (and presumably like it). I don't mind such unnecessary info remaining in the article so long as it doesn't intrude upon the article's readability, and, IMHO, having the Notes column become long and skinny because of all of that verbiage, and the photo of the person becoming a small square in a longer rectangle necessitated by the long "Note," makes it more difficult to obtain vital information about the members listed.
And, since their still appears to be incredulity among some editors on this matter in particular, yes, I think that having a prominent and visible photo of each Asian-American and Pacific-American member of Congress is more important than having a prominent sentence noting that, say, she is the first Thai member of the Senate. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think assuming what format casual readers might prefer is folly, for the record. It's usually just an excuse to substitute your own preferences. Nevermore27 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't want to be accused of claiming to be looking out for what I assume that readers want as an excuse to substitute my own preferences, so I'm changing my vote to match my personal preference for the article. I now vote to eliminate the "ethnicity first" altogether, since they are unnecessary given that the ethnicity column is fully sortable. If you want to learn whether Bobby Scott was the first Filipino-Anerican U.S. Representative, just click on the "ethnicity" heading on the Representatives table. Thank you for pointing out ths folly of trying to accomodate what other people may like. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mk. So, I didn't intend that with the vitriol that you appear to have taken from it. By that same token, anyone who wants to see a prominent photo can just click through and see the full image! why do we even need to have pictures at all on this page, they can just click through to the main article! Nevermore27 (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one objected to the new format of smaller reference tables at the bottom of each section, I implemented that change. This reduces the amount of text in the table proper, and keeps the information more accessible than keeping it at the bottom. However, non-AAPI ethnicity-related notes (e.g. later positions and/or runs for office) properly belong in the Notes column. This applies to far less people than historical ethnic firsts so it doesn't disrupt the table as much as including all the text, so hopefully this final compromise will be amenable to everyone involved. I cannot accept that the Notes column can only be used for the manner of departure from office, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "Notes". If any of you insists on reverting parts or the whole of these changes I can only assume that y'all are abusing WP:STONEWALLING, WP:ONEHANDGIVES and WP:FILIBUSTER and don't have any interest in cooperating and I will react accordingly. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you are trying to threaten other editors is appalling and shows that you are abusing your position. Some of your edits I don't mind such as later positions and/or runs for office, but others I don't agree should be there especially related to the Congressional Black Caucus. Nnnou2 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nnnou2: Not a threat, just a statement of position. I didn't actually add the CBC membership part, I thought you did that. If you think it should be removed I don't really have a problem with that, since it's not directly related to the members' AAPI status. I just kept it because it was already there, and since it's not AAPI ethnicity-related, I felt it better belonged in the Notes. But like I said, if you think it shouldn't be there at all, I'm not particularly bothered removing it. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nevermore27:, I agree that the footnotes that you placed for members of the Senate are not obtrusive, and have no problem with you doing the same for members of the House. The table looks much better with those changes. But where do you get off claiming that including additional information in the "Notes" column regarding future offices (unrelated to their reason for leaving office), religious firsts or membership in other racial caucuses was accepted by the ediing community? As you are well aware, a consensus has not developed regarding whether such information should be included within the table (which results in the entries getting longer) or in a footnote.
By the way, while some of the information that you added could be of interest to readers, and is similar to the information included in footnotes in the article on Hispanic/Latino members of Congress (which has footnotes noting prior or subsequent service in major offices, such as the U.S. Senate of governorship, but not for some of the less prominent offices that you added to the Asian/Pacific Islander article), some of it is not germane to the article. Why mention that Dymally, Scott, Clarke and Strickland were/are members of the Congressional Black Caucus? That has nothing to do with their reason for being in this particular article, which has to do with their Asian/Pacific Islander ancestry, not their black ancestry. (And please note that the articles on Native American and on Hispanic/Latino members of Congress do not point out which of the members listed also happen to have black ancestry or membership in the CBC, and that the article on Hispanic/Latino members of Congress does not mention which of the Hispanic Resident Commissioners from the Philippines also were of Asian/Pacific Islander descent.)
So, if you want to make changes that are consistent with the Senate footnotes to which you did not receive objection, you should include in a footnote to the "Notes" the "religious firsts" that you identified as well aa subsequent service in major offices--future U.S. Senate service is germane to a House member who did not resign or retire to go to the Senate, and governorships or federal Cabinet-level posts are also prominent enough to be mentioned (as is, it goes without saying, subsequent service as president of a country, such as is the case of Resident Commissioner of the Philippines Manuel Quezón), but not state legislature, state cabinet posts or county or municipal offices. That would include important, but not trivial, information, and would reduce the size of each member's entry for easier reading. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican: I did not add any new information, it was already there, just in the footnotes that others crafted. The only thing we're disagreeing on is where to put it. If you think some information is better left out, fine, whatever. But anything that's not directly related to AAPI historical firsts should be in the Notes column. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican: I'm curious where you stand on this; Saiki was Administrator of the Small Business Administration for HW Bush's presidency; SBA was was Cabinet-level for Clinton's presidency and Obama's to the present but was not for either Bush. Even though Saiki was not a member of the Cabinet, does the current level of the position make it worth including in the table? Nevermore27 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference to Saiki serving as SBA Administrator when I removed the reference to Mink's service as Assistant Secretary of State. And you are correct to surmise that had the SBA been a Cabinet-level when Saiki held that post that I would have considered the position prominent enough to be notable. Assistant Secretary of State for whatever it was and Administrator of the SBA were consolation prizes that Presidents Carter and Bush gave Mink and Saiki, respectively, after losing Senate races the prior year (the primary in the case of Mink, and the general in the case of Saiki). Their post-House service in those positions just isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the article about Asian-American members of Congress, just as service as city councilman (another job that Mink held between her two tours of duty in the House), state legislator, or even state AG or Lieutenant Governor (which are more prominent positions than are Assistant Secretary of State or SBA Administrator) are not mentioned for anyone in this article or similar articles. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough I was just curious if it might merit inclusion just based on its current prominence. It would make sense either way to me. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Inquiry about Joaquín Miguel Elizalde. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
