Talk:List of United States senators from Massachusetts

Class vs. Series

Anyone mind if I change "Class 1" to "Series 1"? (And the 2s, also.)

Why exactly would you want to do that, if I may ask? The U.S. Constitution itself is what defines electoral groups of Senators by "Class"^[1]. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 15:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have an explanation or link to what this means for non-Americans. Is it the same as junior and senior? 62.31.55.223 00:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've linked it on this page.—Markles 12:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider the whole notion of division into two classes utterly pointless and annoying. It has no relation to junior or senior, which simply refer to age, it has no significance with respect to political power or committee membership, and the whole distinction is purely extra-constitutional. (Admittedly, the Constitution suggests three "classes", but they are only referred to as such incidental to the explanation of how the staggered terms ought to be initiated; nowadays we might choose the word, "sets".) Furthermore, it suggests that some senators aren't "first class", which, though pointless, seems unfair. My main objection, however, is that it makes navigating the page unwieldy. I don't know how others do it, but I find that I have to use the right and left arrows repeatedly and cumbersomely, and who the hell cares about this ridiculous division anyway? If somebody wants to insert an asterisk next to the names of members of "Class II" (but not those of "Class I", that would provide identical information and a significant reduction of complexity. 172.56.26.244 (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong about "junior" and "senior" in this special context. In ordinary English, "junior" means "younger" and "senior" means "older". 208.54.85.194 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Elected vs. entered office

Kennedy

As of this date there is conflation of "elected" "appointed" and the terms in office for at least two individuals. Needs proper sorting out and review. Example, Ted Kennedy was elected in November, 1962, but that date is in the "took office" column. His predecessor is stated as retired on election day, which would make for a vacancy, unless Kennedy were sworn in on the day of the special election as well--unlikely. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

I revised the entry for Kennedy as follows:

• According to Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 1774 - 2005, Kennedy's special election was Nov 6, 1962, and he "Began service November 7 1962" How he entered office so quickly is not stated, and I suspect he was appointed by the Governor pending certified election results by the Secretary of State.
  Source: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 1774 - 2005 and 87th Congress Page 423, footnote 19 and 20.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy's predecessor was an appointement to fill the gap left by his brother's resignation. I've been working ons eniority stuff for a while now. Back before the 80s, the appointed Senator, because he was never elected, will step down immediatly for the elected Senator. I can name other instances where this happened.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kerry

When Tsongas departed office by resigning a day before his term ended, Kerry was appointed one day before entering office by right of his election, as a means to gain seniority over other incoming Senators. This should be distinguished as well, with citations placed here. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a 1980 Rules Committee policy that changed that. I know for a fact that an early appointment just to gain office space would not count. John Cornyn was affected by this rule. It also impacted Dean Barkley's consideration to resign early (he decided not to). It may depend on circumstances of Paul Tsongas' early resignation. If Tsongas had a reason for resigning beyond "I want to give the new guy seniority" then it may still very well count regardless of the rule. If the rule was in effect for Kerry, he would've only gained better office space out of the early appointment, nothing more.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Appointment section

I propose that the section on appointments be trimmed. The full procedural history is interesting to me, but I don't think it actually belongs here. I would suggest something along the lines of, "While terminally ill with brain cancer, Kennedy requested that the General Court change the law to allow a temporary appointment. Kennedy died shortly thereafter, and the legislature passed a bill providing for a temporary appointment. The legislature failed to meet the two-thirds requirement to declare it emergency legislation that would have allowed an immediate appointment. However, Governor Patrick declared it emergency legislation when signing it on September 24, 2009, and made an appointment the same day." -Rrius (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I Think it's fine to trim. I pulled in the current law change from the 2010 special election article, to make it easier to trim down later. Although Kennedy publically requested the change, he was not the only person interested in changing the law.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay. I did major work on most of the other lists of senators by state, and they are a completely different style. Along the way, I've developed a reticence to edit too extensively at the 11 or so articles that use this format for various reasons. -Rrius (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Merged classes 1 & 2 into single table

I've made a major revision. I merged both class lists into a single large table. I'm worried that it's too confusing as it's too much data. But this why I did it: readers can now see who served with whom. I welcome your comments.—GoldRingChip 20:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's interesting, but it's very cluttered. Fifteen columns is just too many, and the forced height when a senator of one class served beside several senators of the other makes it more unwieldy, as do the many times when a congress is (continued). I'm also not sure what the blue and red columns are for. United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts can be used if people want a timeline representation of who served with whom, and a link to it should be more prominent here, but this article is for the details of who served rather than with whom they served. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your assessment. It certainly does look cluttered. That's been my biggest problem with this new format. I wish there was a way to contain all that information without making it so cluttered. The blue and red columns are there just to divide the two different classes; it's kind of like having a bold border. I just converted a much simpler & shorter list, List of United States Senators from Alaska, which looks a little less cluttered, but it's still not optimal. —GoldRingChip 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't look quite as messy, but it's still wider than my screen, and the symmetry from the center feels a little weird. I think United States congressional delegations from Alaska is good enough for matching the timelines; perhaps in the long term these detailed lists could include other information, like occupation/other offices held. Reywas92^Talk 03:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I just wrapped the Alaska list to reduce horizontal space. Does it fit on your screen now? I don't like adding extraneous information such as occupation/other offices/religion/college to these lists.—GoldRingChip 03:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I just wanted to weigh in on the redesign. It's definitely a bold move and does look a little cluttered, although it does all fit nicely on my screen. As previously stated, it does take some getting used to having the center be the starting point. Also as mentioned, United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts does seem to clearly and more simply show who served with who, so I tend to prefer that over this. My one legitimate objection would be with the red/blue borders. I think most people instantly associate those with the political parties, yet it has nothing to do with it here and seems confusing. Alternating between grey and white congressional terms is alright I suppose to help visually separate them, but I'm still not big on that either as I think of different colors as meaning something different, but again it does not this time. I'm also opposed to adding college, religion, etc. to these pages, but I do think there should be at least a table under that shows living former senator as there are on most governors pages, if not a full table with birth and death details on all senators from this state as that information is vital in my opinion. Anyway, other than the colors, if everyone finds it functional, I guess it could work. - RoadView (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I removed the red & blue columns and also took out the "#" column that indicated the Senator's order in their class. Finally, I made the "Term" column a heading cell, so it stands out a little more. I'll do the same for List of United States Senators from Alaska. Does it look a little better?—GoldRingChip 12:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It definitely looks better with the red/blue gone. As for removing the # column, although there is a lot to see, personally I would lean toward keeping that column and deal with the vast amount of information being presented. Hopefully others will give their input. - RoadView (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Please revert back to the old one. This is very very confusing and I cannot find out the reason. The other one is much more practical.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• You asked "please revert" and then you immediately reverted yourself without further discussion.—GoldRingChip 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm trying this format to combine the two classes into a single timeline. A couple other editors have given their opinions as we've attempted to make it better. Can you give us more suggestions?—GoldRingChip

I only have one suggestion: if you're gonna do it, then do it in all articles of the same category (i.e. List of United States Senators from <state name>) so that they will all be uniform. Thanks --The Theosophist (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be uniform. Converting the tables is very complicated, but I'm willing to do it. However, I don't want to do it until we have a settled format because I don't want to change them all again. And if this is overall a bad idea, I don't want to commit to all that work only to revert it in the end. That's why I converted one complicated (Massachusetts) and one simple (Alaska) article, so we could gather feedback and discuss.—GoldRingChip 13:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd first like to say sorry for being a bit harsh to you, but I couldn't imagine how much a co-operative person you are. I have bad memories with people who did similar things and then they thought that their version is the only one good, so I am a little more vigilant than I should be on such occasions--The Theosophist (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think the change is enormously useful. The old system made it difficult to tell when Senators were serving with each other, which can be very useful information. However, I think a template should be made to simplify the format, and (of course) make it uniform. Plumber (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see who is serving with whom, United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts is very helpful. I still think this layout feels very cluttered and I kindly ask GoldRingChip to refrain from converting other articles for now. Reywas92^Talk 14:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly will refrain from any more conversions. I'm not totally sold on this table, but I like it and want to make it work.—GoldRingChip 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Extensive

This "list" is far too big to navigate easily. Perhaps a concise list, of names only, ought to be inserted above it. 208.54.85.208 (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

why does he get 2 pictures? Skippypeanuts (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• It was a judgement call, and perhaps POV? I think because he served so long and we actually have pictures of him at different ages.—GoldRingChip 20:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Edward Brooke missing from this list?

I was looking for the answer to an acrostic puzzle clue asking for a US senator from Massachusetts who served through the 1970s. The answer turned out to be Edward Brooke. According to Wikipedia's entry on Brooke, he served as a US senator from Massachusetts from January 3, 1967, to January 3, 1979.71.63.5.61 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• He's on this list. Right column (Class 2), between Leverett Saltonstall and Paul Tsongas. —GoldRingChip 13:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh. Thanks. It is an awfully big table!71.63.5.61 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)