Talk:List of United States political families

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
To-do list for List of United States political families: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    See also:

    Contents

    [edit] Meta-history

    Note that this page was initially entitled Bush dynasty, and the initial discussions here concern this somewhat controvertial subject

    [edit] Reversions

    I'm not even sure what the disagreement is because most of the reversions have gone without comment (Wik's reversions of RickK, RickK's reversion to his version instead of mine). Before either of you (Wik and RickK) revert again, please explain what you don't like in the current article. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan 20:20, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

    I corrected a spelling ("occurence" -> "occurrence") yesterday, and this keeps getting reverted. --Wik 20:30, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

    I think it is inappropriate to revert a significant addition over the spelling of a single word and to summarize the change with simply "rv". You failed to mention the spelling error in each of 4 reversions. It would have been trivial, even easier, for you to correct the error without reverting. I already had added this page to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles, but that now seems like the wrong place given your frankly inadequate rationale for these reversions. Misspelling that word seems like an innocent error on the part of RickK. Daniel Quinlan 20:45, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    It's not that RickK misspelled it. He didn't deal with the first paragraph at all, yet he reverted my correction there. This may be the result of a rare bug, but in general this is caused by an edit conflict, when a user simply copies his revision over the previous one. I have discussed this with many users before (see my talk archives), but I'm not changing my principle of strict reversion in those cases. Of course it would be easier in a simple case like this to just ignore the other person's faux pas and redo my edit, but I don't want to encourage this kind of behaviour. (Note: I'm not accusing RickK, as he said he has no idea how it happened in this case. But if it was a bug, this is so rare that it does not change my principle.) --Wik 20:55, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    What behavior? It would have been easier, more friendly, and more cool-headed to redo your edit (which was much smaller than RickK's) and send a polite note to RickK. The principle seems to have been to punish simple mistakes with no explanation, as in a Pavlovian experiment. Please treat other users with more respect. Daniel Quinlan 21:05, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    The behaviour of ignoring edit conflicts. This is not a simple mistake; if you do it, you do it consciously, since you have to copy your revision from the bottom box and paste it into the top box. That is the unfriendly behaviour, not my reversion. I stand exactly by what I said. --Wik 21:08, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    That may have happened, I don't know. However it happened, compounding it with unexplained reversions is decidedly unhelpful, unfriendly, and only serves to escalate matters. Daniel Quinlan 21:27, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    Well, I know. That's what happens in at least 99% of those cases. And it is that behaviour that is decidedly unhelpful, unfriendly, and disrespectful, not my reaction to it. --Wik 21:55, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    Would anyone object if I deleted this section (or moved it, perhaps?). It's not really relevant to the article itself, now this is resolved... Martin 22:23, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    No objection, is there a way to lock this page to reduce the edit wars? I see that this page is edited about once an hour on weekdays. I would also like to delete this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlairLTFPM (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Delete the article?

    I don't see how you even need this article. It's all just speculation and without any actual content. As it is, it seems like a worthless page to me, and I don't even like the Bush family. Dori 20:38, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

    I agree that Wikipedia would be better without the article. It seems like an ever-increasing amount of Wikipedia is devoted to discussion of and around punditry. Daniel Quinlan 20:50, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    Do you think it should be put on VfD? -- Mattworld 21:01, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    Why not? I would recommend looking to see if there are any similar articles of the same purely speculative nature and propose their deletion at the same time. This article would look pretty dated and silly if Bush isn't re-elected (which would probably mean Jeb Bush would be quite unlikely to become President), another encyclopedic-content test that it fails. Daniel Quinlan 21:22, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

    I can understand fears of partisanship, but does it really need to stretch to deleting a page discussing a very widely used term for the way the Bush family has succeeded in getting two Presidents so far, and looks like a good candidate for getting a third? Note that some of the references I just added were from a serious news organization after the current President was first elected, so it's not simply a question of GW getting elected again or waiting for his brother. The conspiracy theory merits attention. So does this more serious coverage of the topic. JamesDay 02:00, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    [edit] VfD and rename

    At this point the page "Bush Dynasty" was listed on VfD (it appeared like this), where it received a largely negative reception. Following discussions there, User:Cimon Avaro renamed it to Historic US political families, and various wikipedians set about adding additional US political dynasties.

    • Bush dynasty List of US political families
      • -- all guessing, little basis in fact, no references. -- Mattworld 03:07, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. The consensus on the talk page seems to be the same as well. Daniel Quinlan 03:14, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)Keep as the page has been moved and no longer problematic by virtue of the title, now fixable. Daniel Quinlan 04:16, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete, we already have Bush family conspiracy theory, FWIW. Fuzheado
        • I don't think that's the right reason to keep or delete this article. The two articles are quite unrelated except that they are about Bush, a favorite target of some. Daniel Quinlan 04:55, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
          • You're right, of course. It was more to say, "We've already got one runaway article as dumping ground for anti-Bush comments, so let's keep it at one." Or, as you've proposed below, less than one. :) Fuzheado
      • Merge with Bush family conspiracy theory Lirath Q. Pynnor
      • For me, whether this should stay hinges on whether it's true that commentators use this phrase. If it really is used by pundits and columnists, it's reasonable to have an entry on the term. If not, not. It's not the same as the conspiracy theory, either. -- VV 05:58, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. Unnecessary article about something that doesn't exist. Maximus Rex 06:24, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC) article essentially no longer exists
      • Delete, moving the tiny amout of useful info. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. In less than half a page of the 75,000 Google hits I found stories using this by the: New York Times, CNN, Guardian (a major, serious, British newspaper), Village Voice, Cincinnati Enquirer and St. Petersburg Times(FL). This isn't about conspiracy theory any more than the Kennedy family article is. The Bush family actually managed to get 2 Presidents so far and is still going strong. JamesDay 01:41, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Not to nitpick, but Google only gave me 5k hits for the term. Maximus Rex 02:12, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Nitpicking is fine.:) I didn't require the words being adjacent because I was interested in talk about Bush and dynasty, not only the exact phrase. Didn't see too many false hits with the broad search before I got the pieces I listed here, so I didn't refine the search further. JamesDay 07:17, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Move to Dynasties in US politics or the like, put in headers for Kennedy, Daley, Gore, arguably Powell, and lots of historical ones I'm not familiar with (gee, if only there were a wikipedia article about that) and list on Wikipedia:Cleanup. -- Finlay McWalter 02:00, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. unless the slant of the article changes to revealing the holes in the logic and revealing the lies propogated in the theories. Kingturtle 08:23, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • This one isn't about the conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory one below is. JamesDay 08:36, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Since Cimon moved this, its content has changed substantially. Might I suggest those wikipedians who've already voted on this take another look and see if their opinion remains the same. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 13:28, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Second the suggestion, and encourage knowledgeable contributors to create Historic British political families; Historic French political families; Historic German political families etc. I will be creating Historic Finnish political families in just a moment:) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:53, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm thirding this. It can be of great use to someone researching the politics. - user:zanimum

    [edit] Historic US political families

    Good to see this page developing, so perhaps some suggestions on it?

    • Keep in alphabetical order, as Daniel Quinlan said, chronological doesn't make sense given the spans of each of these families in history.
    • Use bulleted lists as much as possible, which makes the names easier to discern.
    • Possibly use hierarchical lists to show lineage and relationships of descendants. Not convinced this is a good idea yet.

    Fuzheado 05:22, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    In many alphabets, "H" precedes "K". -- Someone else 05:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    [1] :) -- Fuzheado
    I think I've vote for a kind of "family tree" structure (which is kinda what I did for the Kennedys). This, combined with the inclusion of family members who held high (non presidential) posts, gives the feeling of the family trees of one of the european royal houses. This is kind of the thesis of the whole article (in its revised form). I think, for example, that Arnold Schwarzenegger should be added to Kennedy. Equally, a Al Gore/VP Al Gore Jr/Gore Vidal axis is interesting too. -- Finlay McWalter 05:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    It gets sticky when you get to marriages, because sometimes it's just celebrity, sometimes it's political, sometimes no big deal at all. So we should try to provide some guidance here as to what makes the grade (or not). For example, the Nixon-Eisenhower marriage is a nice trivia question, but it's not clear it has any "political" implications or tradition, which is kinda what we're striving for in this page. Fuzheado 05:44, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    I'd be inclined to be fairly catholic whom to include, but obviously people need to use their own best judgement. Plainly the "fact" that Gore and Bush are "related" (via someone in Yorkshire or whatever, ten generations removed) isn't encyclopedic. I would be inclined to include references to family members who are in the wikipedia but not necessarily politicians (Gore Vidal, maybe Samuel Adams (American revolutionary)). That said, my limited knowledge of American politics/history is now entirely exhausted, so it'll have to be someone else's better judgement, I'm afraid. -- Finlay McWalter 11:29, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    I've done some research on Gore Vidal, and apparently the link between him (and his senator grandfather) and the VP Al Gore is tenuous. He apparently things the two are seventh cousins, while some genealogists (see [2]) say there's no relation at all. Either way, it's much too tenuous for this page, IMHO. -- Finlay McWalter 02:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    Oh, I think I misunderstood what y'all meant about alphabetical order. Alphabetical order of the sections seems fine. I mistook you to mean alphabetical order within each family. DUh, silly me. -- Finlay McWalter 12:43, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    Each family deserves its own entry once the content reaches a certain level. --The Cunctator 16:46, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    I agree.JamesDay 02:41, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    User:Calieber added a note about Chappaquiddik, saying which may be POV. Nope, I think what you put is fine - it's fair to say the Chappaquiddik incident put paid to Ted Kennedy's presidential ambitions (rightly or wrongly). I think the wording you chose was impeccably NPOV. -- Finlay McWalter

    I suppose, but it seems to me that people are still bringing it up 34 years later when they want to impugn his credibility or character. Not that I can think of any, and they may only be fringe people, in which case never mind.
    Obviously, I don't perceive that so much that I didn't put it in in the first place. --Calieber 17:47, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

    In general, I think everyone who's contributed to this page since its rescue from the jaws of VfD should give themself a little pat on the back. In a few days this page has gone from silly partisan bickercrap into a really interesting and informative page. (still, I wonder how long it will be before some wiseass tries to put Gomez and Fester into the Adams family section). -- Finlay McWalter 14:39, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    I agree with Finlay - well done everyone! :) Martin 19:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    I agree. Hopefully we'll end up with some really substantive coverage on dynasties in US politics. A surprisingly large number of them. JamesDay 02:41, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    Hmm, is "Kennedies" really the correct form (it looks weird to me)? I'd figure that, for proper nouns, one has to dump the normal rule and go with "Kennedys". Perhaps dodging the issue and putting "Kennedy Family" would be the safest idea? -- Finlay McWalter 16:07, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, 5.18, would say "Kennedys": If the noun is proper, or if the y is preceded by a vowel, add s to form the plural {Teddy-Teddys} {ploy-ploys} {buoy-buoys}." -- Someone else 02:22, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    Google says 279k for Kennedys and 2k for Kennedies. JamesDay 02:41, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    Patrick Kennedy muddle: Our link to Patrick Kennedy (son of senator ted) seems to link instead to his great-grandfather, Patrick J. Kennedy (I think). Can someone who understands the family tree better make a stub for the younger one (under what name he really uses - Patrick J Kennedy II? - or fix the link if we already do have such a page) and then fix our linkation snafu. Thanks -- Finlay McWalter 15:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    The political graeyard list them as the grandfather: Patrick Joseph Kennedy also known as P.J. Kennedy and the grandson: Patrick Joseph Kennedy also known as Patrick J. Kennedy. That doesn't help us much though. Rmhermen 15:20, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

    The genealogy is:

    (1) Patrick Joseph Kennedy (1858 - 1929)
& Mary Augusta Hickey (1857 - 1923)
 (2) Joseph Patrick Kennedy (1888 - 1969)
 & Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald (1890 - 1995)
   (3) Edward Moore Kennedy (1932 - )
   & Joan Bennett
     (4) Patrick Joseph Kennedy (1967 - )

    I think I've disambiguated reasonably, but if your mileage differs, please adjust...-- Someone else 07:46, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    I've added a few new families which include a number of dead links. Nonetheless I do feel the additions are warranted and perhaps the links will find fruition later on (even if I have to do it myself). However, I have committed the I hope pardonable sin of predicting the future in circumstances where it is quite fully obvious. Russ Carnahan will win his congressional election in 2004 in his heavily democratic district, and Connie Mack IV will do likewise in his GOP district. If others feel this crystal balling is unwarranted and not encyclopedic feel free to make the necessary changes; I'll change them back in November. Thehappysmith 22:15 UTC 16 September 2004

    [edit] Married Couples

    Hi; any reason the Clintons aren't on the list? Just wondering, since it seems that consisting of one former US President and one serving senator is enough to be on the list judging by some other entries. Wernher 04:19, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    Sure, add them. Two people is a bit on the low side, but Clinton was President and Senator is not to be sneezed at, so I suppose it's sufficient. Daniel Quinlan 04:28, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    Two people admittedly is as low as it gets, but I was just comparing with, say, the Gores, who may arguably be said to have been slightly less significant (depending on Gore Sr's impact on US politics -- he was a long-serving senator, I gather)... The Gore vs Clinton family 'ranking' might change within the next decade(s), though :-). Wernher 04:52, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    Well then, what about the Doles? Bob was Senate majority leader, twice, nominee for president and vice president, while Elizabeth is a senator, and former Secretaries of Transportation and Labor.
    Maybe we need to decide on a limit at some point. Or we could just say the article should be about the top 10 or top 20 historically, then we just have to evaluate the bottom entries against each other. For example, Clinton >> Dole. :-) Daniel Quinlan 08:16, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    Well, I'm against adding married couples, as they are in power at the same time or close to the same time, thus reducing their overall impact on the nation. Compare the Roosevelts to the Clintons, over 150 years of being in politics at a national level to 12. Gentgeen 23:42, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    [edit] Renaming

    "List of dynasties in US politics" seems a less apt name than "List of US political families". "Dynasty" implies a much more extensive and durable entity than most of the families listed here had. -- Someone else 05:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    Dynasty is just the wrong word to use. Look it up in the dictionary. It does not apply.
    1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
    2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.
    At most the term only applies to one or two listings. Most held different offices, and when family members held the same office, almost every one was interrupted by someone from the other party or another family. Daniel Quinlan 06:14, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    In addition to the inaccuracy, dynasty is a pejorative term in American politics. The opponents of a family's politics are far more likely to call that family a dynasty than supporters would be. It is George Bush's enemies that speak of a "Bush Dynasty", just as it was those who objected to the Kennedy's politics that spoke of a Kennedy Dynasty, not their admirers. Altogether an unhappy choice of name for articles that purport to be neutral. -- Someone else 15:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    Give the above discussion and reasoning and the lack of support for the "dynasty" name, I restored the original location and naming. Sorry I didn't get around to this earlier. Daniel Quinlan 10:48, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

    [edit] dates?

    A more procedural question, to improve page consistency: Do we want to list birth and death (where applicable) years after names on this list? Right now some families have them, and others don't. -FZ 18:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    [edit] List from elsewhere

    This list was removed from Political families by country: N-Z, to avoid divergence. Please check whether all of the below are already here and remove the checked items from the below. Mikkalai 21:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    The Adams Family

    The Bush Family

    The Harrison Family

    The Kennedy Family

    The La Follette Family

    The Roosevelt Family


    The Taft Family

    [edit] What is an American family?

    Reviewing the page recently (goodness it's grown) I noticed that it's really rather messy. Probably I'll go in and try to fix it up since I'm on deployment right now and have little else to do. Would anyone care to comment on the following?

    • The discussion above re: dates; I think it makes sense to list birth and death dates for each individual to give some indication of when the family was important and by how much members of earlier generations preceded later generations. So I'll add dates. However, I'll probably not wikify the dates because that seems not to be the trend in those cases where dates are currently found.
    • Bullets make it easier to read. Bullets which are then stepped down by generation make it easier still, and in cases like the Kennedys where there's a great deal of intermingling the family-tree style setup seems quite nice. I'll rework those families that either fail to use bullets or just list everyone at a single bullet to match this; I don't think there's much left in terms of nesting, at least not until the Bush children start running for office on their own God save us all.
    • And finally, what exactly qualifies as an American political family? There is presently on this page at least one family that seems not to be of any consequence to the nation at large (The Hagans), and we also have the request to import what I can assure you would be an absolutely massive amount of information from the political graveyard. This concerns me.

    It seems to me we need a bit of a litmus test to decide which families warrant inclusion here. Certainly there are numerous instances of fathers and sons and brothers and cousins and what all else being prominent within their states, as the Hagans seem to be, but this hardly qualifies IMO as worthy of being named a "U.S. Political Family." I propose the following:
    A family must have at least one member to have served as one of the following: Governor of a state; U.S. Representative; U.S. Senator; Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Vice President; or President.
    Without at least one family member in one of these national positions, I find it hard to call a family a U.S. political family. Instead they'd be an Ohio political family or what have you. We might perhaps also consider prominent ambassadors and or justices of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, especially if it was a case where several family members were ambassadors or justices on the court of appeals.
    Any comments on this? Thehappysmith 16:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    There are a large number of women who won a special election to the House or Senate after the death of a family member, usually a husband. Is the intent to add them all, like Edith Nourse Rogers, Mae Ella Nolan, Florence Prag Kahn, Winnifred Sprague Mason Huck, Mary Bono, Lois Capps, Jean Carnahan (listed), and Jo Ann Emerson? 68.81.231.127 00:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I concur with Thehappysmith's proposal, with one addition -- President's cabinet. This allows us to list the Powells, for instance, and I think they should be on this list. I think I would also accept nominee of a major party for the presidency, although most such persons have another reason to make the list. Once a family makes the list, though, I'm happy to be more flexible about who gets listed. As for stand-in wives, I don't think most of them really fit; few have distinguished careers beyond filling out a term. Unless a family is here for another reason, or the spouse continues and gains distinction, they probably shouldn't be on this list. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Bush Family

    Changed origin of Bush family's political dynasty to Ohio. See_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Bush

    [edit] WP:FLC

    This all looks pretty good to me - good enough to be a featured list candidate? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

    Gah. No. One group of family listings make up over a quarter of the entire article. The vast majority of that group of families should go into the main article for the family and only the most notable left in this list. older≠wiser 03:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Vaughn R. Walker

    Removed from Walker family:

    • Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, (b. 1944) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; received his commission, November 1989; made Chief Judge, 2004.

    I could find no evidence that Judge Walker (born in Watseka, IL) was related to George Herbert Walker of St. Louis, or William P. Walker of Mass., as the article stated. A NY Times bio which mentions the other Judge Walker, who is a cousin of GHWB, fails to note any familial relationship. [3] --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Walker family

    I've revamped the section on the Walker family, as Dorothy Walker is clearly no descendant of William P. Walker, nor was he related to her patrilineal line in any obvious way -- Walker's just a reasonably common name. His son-in-law David Davis, though, was a blood cousin of the Walkers and Bushes. The resulting arrangement is awkward, but I hope clarified by the subsection naming. It made sense to get George H. Walker in there, even though he never held office, and so I kept the short intro which explains the relationship to the Bush family. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Morton Family

    This is a glaring omission! Thurston B. Morton represented Kentucky in the U.S. House at the same time his brother Rogers Morton represented Maryland in the House. Thurston went on to serve in the Eisenhower administration, two terms in the U.S. Senate, and as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Rogers served as Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Commerce. Many families listed on this page pale in comparison to these two. 20:45, 6 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.120.195 (talk • contribs) .

    Thanks for mentioning it. Being left off the page (as long as the article scope is attained) isn't a judgement of notability, it's just an omission. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Washington Family?

    Admittedly I don't know much about them, but it seems like a glaring omission. Wasn't one of George's nephews a Congressman and then another someone important? -MichiganCharms 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

    Quite right -- they should be on here. I have just added what I could find on them. Awbeal 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Political Family

    This may be a silly question, but what exactly should a 'political' family be - should it be 'elected representatives'? Or should families which have a history of being highly involved in the political process be, or could they be categorized such? It's not as simple when you look above, at "Walker Family" and realize that people are on this list without holding office, so at what point is the line in the sand drawn? Achromatic (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

    I would say election to high national elected office, serious candidacies for President, national-cabinet-level appointed office, or head of a national political party all qualify to make a person "political" with enough import to count for this list. State or local equivalents would count if they had a national impact, such as a few big-state governors or big-city mayors have had. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Splitting

    Would it be ok if I were to split this page into articles for each family, creating a new article for families that don't already have one? --Michael WhiteT·C 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sounds like a good idea to me. Right now, this page is xbox-huge, and really needs to be split. 74.227.225.28 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    Better idea: For 20-odd families that do already have one, just put "see ..." instead of "main article..." and a summary. For the most important few dozen of the remaining families, create articles and do the same. Leave the lower-priority members here without their own family articles. "Priority" is in the eye of the individual editor, but I'd say do as many as you need to get the article down well below 200KB.
    Also: Splitting the list into 2 or 3 sections by alphabet works well. See the split of Wikipedia:List of missing journals for an example of how to do this while preserving a common header. One thing this article may have to worry about that Wikipedia:List of missing journals didn't is incoming links: If you split it, there will be a few dozen redirected incoming links. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    That sounds good to me. I am currently working on splitting it into state articles like List of New York political families. If a family is solely in one state, it is only listed on that state's list. If at least two members (or in the case of a 2-member family, 1 member) were active in another state, a section is placed in that state's article with a See List of main state political families#Family link. I should be done within a few days. --Michael WhiteT·C 12:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Before a split can happen, this article needs references and fast , 900 + family and not one reference. I'd reckon a some come be removed as WP:NNGnevin (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    I spent a lot of time splitting the page (offline), and then a lot had been added since the version I downloaded, so I haven't completed it yet. I would rather not have to spend the time adding references; it would be nice if the principal author of the page, which seems to be Packerfansam, would do so.--Michael WhiteT·C 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    Can you split this to List of United States political families (A-H) and List of United States political families (I-Z) articles? The TOC contains 897 families and H ends at 458. ---Majestic- (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I have split the list into four separate one because the original list is far too long and is hard to manage. I know that the discussion is still ongoing, but I still think that this should be done asap per WP:BOLD. If editors see the need to discuss further or do a better split, feel free to undo. —Chris! ct 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)