Template talk:Infobox Senator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Infobox Senator is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article.
This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

Contents

[edit] Why delete this infobox?

What is wrong with this infobox? Nothing! Nothing is wrong with it! I don't get it. Deletionists!

[edit] TfD debate

Despite the hysterics just above, this template was not deleted. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 00:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Law school

Law school attendance (or lack of) is relevant to an overview of a lawmaker. Other education (other graduate studies, undergrad, high school, etc.) will vary greatly by individual and can be explained in the body of the article. Potatoe 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not all senators come from a legal background. The law school entry is not universally applicable, and really doesn't belong in the infobox (any more than a "religion" entry or "undergraduate college attended" or other such information). That sort of information can and should be mentioned in the article text itself (if that particular senator attended law school), but it's not really suitable for the infobox. -- Curps 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The law school category is universally applicable in so far as it shows whether or not a lawmaker has received a formal education in the law. This is not to say that one is better than another; political candidates will often play up/down their legal backgrounds/lack thereof. However, given that a senator's career is dedicated to crafting law, law school attendance (or lack of) is more professionally relevant to his/her profile than religion, undergraduate career, or, I would argue, spouse (which is presently included in the infobox). It is also a part of his/her official congressional biography, as listed in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress [1]. Potatoe 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A formal education in existing law is a prerequisite for the judicial branch of government, not the legislative branch. You could also argue that a sentator's career is dedicated to crafting budgets and bringing government funding and businesses and jobs into his state, and therefore studies in the field of economics are equally relevant. You haven't really given a reason why law-school attendance can't simply be specified within the article text... there is no good reason to put it in the template, particularly since it's not universally applicable to all senators (unlike party affiliation, etc).
The value of this information to the average reader is also questionable: if Senator X went to Harvard Law School and Senator Y went to Yale Law School, then this tells me frankly nothing about how either one of them is likely to vote on any given issue. Even if I was intimately familiar with the faculty members of each law school (as of several decades ago) and their judicial philosophies, it would tell me or you nothing about whether the senators in question necessarily agreed with their professors' philosophies (or perhaps did when they were students but no longer do today).
Even for Supreme Court justice nominees, where we know not only their law school attendance but much detailed information about their subsequent careers as lawyers and judges and appeals court judges, it often turns out to be surprisingly hard to predict how they will act when actually on the Supreme Court. So the mere knowledge of which law school a senator attended (many decades ago) tells us almost nothing about their legislative philosophy. It's a mere factoid that's part of their CV and life history information, along with the names of their wives, husbands, children, corporate careers if any and other relevant biographical data. It belongs within the article text along with all that other CV-related information, not in the template. -- Curps 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Makeover

Would anybody mind me changing this template a little to look more like the Template:Infobox President? --MZMcBride 07:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word switches

I went to the (harder than I thought it would be) trouble to add (or in this case, revert) back the aliases for the Democratic Party (United States) in the party affiliation section. Settler 05:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What does this do, exactly? The template that it's linking to doesn't appear to do much, and it's rather confusing to me. Not to mention the fact that there's all this stuff for the democratic party, but nothing for the republican. At first I was going to try to add stuff for that, but seeing how I don't know what it does, I question whether it needs to be there at all. -- stubblyhead | T/c 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new attribute

I've added a width attribute for the image. The previous version had the width hard-wired to 160px. If an image is smaller than this, it will be expanded to fit, causing a reduction in picture quality. The previous value is now the default, so current use should be unaffected. -- stubblyhead | T/c 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion parameter?

Why is this necessary? A person's religion has nothing to do with them being a Senator. VegaDark 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the visibility of the field after someone made a comment on the talk page of Joe Lieberman's article saying that the parameter was already in place, but that it wasn't displaying. I don't believe that a person's religion has anything to do with being a Senator, but either does who their spouse is. The field is used in other infoboxes such as Template:Infobox President and the purpose of infoboxes is to inform readers in a concise way the information that can be found on the page. I think that the field should be left alone. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That field should be removed. I dont understand why somebody wants to know someones religion. Maybe i dont just understand US culture because i am from Europe, as we dont mix religions or any other superstitions into politics. --84.230.64.76 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have made the field optional. Stealthound 15:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It certainly strikes me as very peculiar for a political infobox. By making it one of the small handful of factoids, there is a strong implication that religion has special significance for politicians (i.e. we don't highlight religion for infoboxes in most other fields). Wouldn't education be more pertinent? --Lee Hunter 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read the above comments, but it's common to have religion as a parameter in this type of infobox. Both Template:Infobox President and Template:Infobox Congressman include this parameter. While I can't really comment on other occupational fields using religion as a parameter without further research, I can say that it is commonly used in political-office infoboxes. Thanks. --MZMcBride 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Religion has no business on the infobox of a politican! The government is a SECULAR institution and religion is completely out-of-place here. If we start listing social attributes of congressmen, why not start listing net-worth, annual income, occupation of parents, educational attainment, health problems, etc... Why off all social attributes would one chose religion when describing a public offical in a secual government?! I will try an remove the religion listings from all infoboxes pertaining to US politicans- just becuase an error in judgment was made on those templates is no justification to have the same error occur on this template. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Unilaterally deciding that religion should be removed is unacceptable. Your changes have been reverted. If you'd like to have a discussion about removing it, you're free to. However, I would like to point out that this infobox is not US-specific, and there are many governments that are non-secular that have senates. Thanks. --MZMcBride 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has begun here to establish consensus regarding the religion parameter. All editors are invited to join the discussion. This message has been cross-posted to other relevant talk pages. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox "name" field - use common name? Full name?

I've posted a question about this at Template talk:Infobox Politician#Infobox "name" field - use common name? Full name?. Those interested might want to take a look there, and comment. John Broughton | Talk 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current problem with Senators-Elect

There was not a good way to indicate the Senator-Elect without making a false statement, so I have added a footnotes section at the bottom. This will give the option to indicate the next in line. I couldn't figure out how to remove the middle line, so I put the footnote on the right side. Stealthound 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junior / Senior Senator field

I notice that this Jr/Sr. field cannot be answered with a single value for more than a few senators. They all have junior years, and some become the senior senator. Recommendations on how to handle, for deceased Senators? -- Yellowdesk 04:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an example article and be more specific about what you want to have in the infobox. I'm a pretty adept template editor, so I should be able to fix whatever issue you have. Thanks. --MZMcBride 03:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Only use Senior or Junior Senator if the Senator is currently in office. If they no longer hold the office simply use United States Senator. -Rougher07 08:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add State field

I propose that we make the Senior/Junior field link to the United States Senate page and add a field for state. -Rougher07 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion parameter discussion

There have been disputes and questions surrounding the use of a religion parameter in various infoboxes, namely Template:Infobox Officeholder, Template: Infobox Senator, and Template:Infobox Congressman. Changes to templates can effect hundreds or thousands of articles, and therefore consensus is vital. This area should serve as place for discussion about whether or not these three specific infoboxes should have religion as an optional parameter. The purpose of templates is to provide uniformity, and as such, whichever way gains consensus should be implemented across all three templates. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion should not be part of this template for three main reasons:
  • The US government is a suclar institution where religion is not usually an important variable.
  • Of all societal attributes that can be used to describe a person, there is no reason to pick on religion in the infobox.
  • Having a religion parameter in the infobox gives the impression that US government isn't secular and thus is misleading.
If religion is somehow very important in the case of a paricular senator, it can be menioned in the article. Religion has a far lesser effect on an individual's career than say net worth and mentining the religion of public servant in a secular government is misleading. If we put in an optional parameter for religion, then we should also put in net worth, income, educational attainment, etc... which are as relevant to the subject. Having only religion, a semi-relevant private characteristics, gives the wrong impression of the US government is completely un-called for. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not 100% essential to have religion in these infoboxes. However, I will support keeping it for the following reasons.

  • several major independent directories of senators and congressmen, particularly those put out by CQPress and others include religion. They also include previous career and, I might add, highest level of education received, whether it be college, masters, PhD., etc.
  • religion should be included for completeness. It is a factual aspect about the member rather than an endorsement of a particular religion. I think Wikipedia readers, in general, realize that fact. We want to provide as much information to readers as possible, within reason. I don't think including religion automatically means we should list automatically include net worth in an infobox, favorite color, or other matters. One could argue that marital status is a private matter, yet we include that.
    There are countless "factual aspects" which could be included. It's a question of importance. If we started including "Abortion stance" in the infoboxes, that would clearly be a case of undue weight. The question should not be completeness, but whether it is a key fact of a congressional biography. —Dgiest c 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The House and Senate both have chaplains and have had chaplains for over 100 years. They provide non denominational spiritual guidance to members of congress, and that does not alter in any way the secular nature of government. Including religion the infobox does not alter 200 plus years of secular government.
  • Including religion in the info box is an unintrusive way to provide the information. Including it in the text of the article may be appropriate for Keith Ellison and Mazie Hirono, since they are the first Muslims and Buddhists in Congress, but what about members of Congress who are Protestants? If you are going to write "John Doe is a Senator from State X and a Christian" for every member of congress who identifies his or herself as such, why not just include it in the infobox? That way the information is still there, but it doesn't interrupt the flow of the article. You can still mention their religion in the article if the member makes it a major part of their public life.

Just my two cents.Dcmacnut 05:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me address the points you made:
  • We could follow the examples set by these independent diresctories and feature all societal attributes such as educational attainment and net worth, etc... But just mentioning religion is misleading
  • Again my problem is with just mentioning religion, it gives a false impression that religion is the only societal attribute mentioned.
  • "Including religion the infobox does not alter 200 plus years of secular government."- certainly not, but it is misleading by duping people into thinking that religion must be the most important social variable of a politican. It makes our secular government seem less secular to readers.
  • Yes it is way to provide info, but again why pick soley on religion- it disguises the secular nature of our government and makes it look as if religion is the single most important societal feature of a canidate.
Regards and thanks for providing such a well-layed out argument, Signaturebrendel 07:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that including just religion is misleading. There is a lot of valuable information on office holders that would be of interest to readers. Some societal information is included in articles, but we have so many biographical stubs that adding that information to the infobox makes sense. Net worth is harder to ascertain, but the informatin is available through federal financial disclosure forms. Here's Nancy Pelosi's disclosure for 2005 (most recently available data). Note that it only gives a broad range of assests, which is all that is required of office holders.

Therefore, I would suggest the following additions (Example is Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey):

  • Term: 7th
  • Percentage last election: 62%
  • Residence: Vineland, New Jersey
  • Education: BA St. Joseph's University, 1968
  • Net Worth: $568,010 to $1,445,000[2]
  • Military Service: (LoBiondo didn't serve in the military, but other members of Congress did so this should be added as an option).

Also, since office holder pages are both biographical and informational, we should also include office information either in the info box or elsewhere in the article

  • Address: 225 Cannon House Office Building
  • Chief of Staff: Mary Annie Harper
  • Legislative Director: Geoff Gosselin

Chief of Staff and Legislative Director are mostly relevant to US senators and US representatives. Comments?Dcmacnut 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Those additions would be fine with me, as my problem lies in just mentioning religion. If you add all those other parameters, religion will no longer stick out as though it was the most important social variable of a politican in the US. Your above suggestion would definitely work, w/ military service being optional. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with BrendelSignature. As you can see above I brought this up back in October and I still think a religion parameter in this is inappropriate for the reasons already mentioned. VegaDark 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings editors. I have been expirementing with adding other paramaters to the senator and congressman infobox to help de-emphasize the mention of religion. Pleaset take a look at the example I have created with John Dingell on my User Page. I picked him because he served in the military, and that's one of the items and hey, hey is the longest serving membe of the House. I pulled the additional information from the Infobox Politician template, which includes profession, children, and even an option for a "civil partner" (the only member of Congress with a life partner is Tammy Baldwin, so that item is probably not be needed in the senator or representative specific templates. It has a lot of information, but still appears manageable to me. Adding Key staff and this other information makes the infobox similar to many of the private congressional directories on the market, and will ensure that stubs have at least this basic information. And they are all optional, so they can be included or left off the infobox as needed.

Items I've added:

  • Residence
  • Number of Children
  • Career (i.e. previous profession or occupation)
  • Eduction
  • Military Service
  • Net Worth (from www.opensecrets.org)
  • official website

Key staff to include

  • Chief of Staff
  • Legislative Director
  • Executive Assistant/Scheduler (two options depending official title in a particular office)
  • Press Secretary/Communications Director (again, two options here)

Please review and let me know what you think about this addition. If no one objects, I can go an added these options to the Senator and Congressman infoboxes, or someone can crib my template at {{User:Dcmacnut/DCTemplates}}. This will make them more in line with the generic Politician infobox. Someone would need to add to the Officeholder infobox, as it is currently "protected" and I am but a lowly editor.Dcmacnut 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think having all of those fields is too much. It will lead to an extremely lengthy infobox, which at times will be longer than the length of the article the person is supposed to be focused on. I'm beginning to think the religion parameter should be removed, and the infoboxes should be left alone. In reality, who a congressperson's executive assistant was is trivial and irrelevant when you look at their life as a whole. Just my thoughts... --MZMcBride 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well those are our two choices: take out religion or include all those above and religion. But, as I have said before, religion alone is unacceptably misleading. The above suggestion by Dcmacnut is fine with me. While I can see MZMcBride's point as well, I still lean towards Dcmacnut suggestion- though I could support either removing the parameter and adding more. Signaturebrendel 06:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm game for any decision, including leaving key staff off the list. However, I still believee religion, previous career, residence, children, and military service should be added to the infobox. It is valid biographical information, and it is included in all major congressional directories as well as already being options for the generic Politician and Officeholder infoboxes. I'm on the fence about Net Worth, since it is a highly subjective number and is something House and Senate offices have been known to delete, rightly or wrongly, from Wikipedia in the past. Leaving it off would avoid that temptations. Moreover, these articles are not merely a summary of their life's work. They also serve as a contact page about the member, and the infobox helps condense that information for the reader. You often have to pay hundreds of dollars to CQ or another director firm to get a comprehensive contact-sheet/bio for members, and I think providing some of that same information to Wikipedia readers for free has merit.Dcmacnut 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional fields

I put the "signature" field on the usage section since it was already part of the code of the template. I was wondering if adding a section for children and a section for a url might be helpful for this template. --Pinkkeith 17:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

Hello, would an experienced template editor, or may I please add 'image size'? -Susanlesch 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It was already part of the code, I just added to the usage. --MZMcBride 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much MZMcBride, that helped a lot. -Susanlesch 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_Senator_b418.html"