This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James A. Garfield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.ClevelandWikipedia:WikiProject ClevelandTemplate:WikiProject ClevelandCleveland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
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
"Senator-elect"(or "Represenative-elect") is not a position, but simply a way to identify that someone won election to public office. An argument could be made that US president-elect is a position(we identify Trump as such) as the law grants a president-elect funding and certain abilities) but that's not the case for senator-elect. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't include senator-elect for those who became senators, which argues that it's not a real thing. For example, John Sherman was listed as Garfield's successor as senator-elect, but his infobox doesn't list it. Similarly, Joseph B. Foraker, who was senator-elect for over a year but we don't mention it in his infobox because he became a senator. Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a thing, it should be in the infobox of every person who was ever a senator. I'm unpersuaded by the floor privileges argument, as since the Senate can set its own rules they can give floor access to anyone they want. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I don't think it should be for every Senator, but for every person elected to the Senate that was not seated. I do think the argument for the law granting "protective status" holds up, but Senators-elect and "appointed employees" are actually compensated for transportation and per diem expenses by the Contingent Fund of the Senate, while Senator-elect, for what "shall be in the same amounts as are payable to Senators". 2 USC 6311
@Wehwalt I get what you're saying, but Edwin Stanton was confirmed and made "Associate Justice-designate" and his successors would have had that title until they were officially sworn in, but we accept the distinction for Stanton because he was confirmed, which I would argue is equivalent to "elected" in terms of process. That also still leaves Frank L. Smith and William Scott Vare who were never seated, but still have the title in their infobox. ZebulonMorn (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, like President-elect, the law grants them the "Appointment of employees by Secretary of Senate to assist; termination of employment" and monetary expenses for "Payment of salaries of appointed employees; funding; maximum amount", "Payment of telegrams, telephone services, and stationery expenses" 2 USC 6311ZebulonMorn (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Secretary of the United States Senate shall appoint two employees to assist such Senator-elect. Any employee so appointed shall serve through the day before the date on which the Senator-elect recommending his appointment commences his service as a Senator, except that his employment may be terminated before such day upon recommendation of such Senator-elect." 2 USC 6311 "Senator-elect" should absolutely be included because it is a position as the law grants a senator-elect funding and certain abilities. ZebulonMorn (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can place a distinction after the names preceding and succeeding Garfield to assuage any concerns about who held the seat. That's not difficult. ZebulonMorn (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding correctly, your argument is we can't place the title in the infobox because his "Predecessor" and "Successor" wouldn't have his name listed as their "Predecessor" or "Successor"? Again, I do think a distinction could be made on Garfield's infobox for this case. I don't think it would be necessary to amend Sherman or Thurman, however, Daniel Schaefer would be a good example.
My objection is that Senator-elect is not really a thing, an office, the individual is still a private citizen. The statute you cite did not go into force until 1978. Nothing would have been expected from Garfield regarding the Senate except that he file his credentials in advance of the expected swearing-in in 1881.
And we only list this "office" when the individual did not become a senator. If it is a thing, it should be listed for every senator who was elected and who did not immediately take office.
Probably at some point this should be settled by RfC. There are enough prominent people whose infoboxes it affects that we really should settle this one way or another. Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The role of the lead section in general, and of the infobox in particular, requires us to be exceedingly cautious about what to include. I could hardly object if Garfield's tenure as senator-elect were mentioned in the main body of the article. (Although even there, it's little more than a trivia item; but there's more room for trivia items there.) But the regarding the infobox, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states the basic paradox: The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
From the number of counterexamples you have mentioned, I guess that many editors do not fully appreciate this paradox. Actually I already knew that; lots of infoboxes out there include trivial offices held, minor military ranks, and so on. Trying to keep infoboxes short and purposeful in Wikipedia is definitely swimming upstream. But that's what I had in mind. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
![[3]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/1880_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:1880RepublicanPoster.png){kind=link}