Misplaced Pages

US National Archives collaboration

Merry Christmas!

Term expiration - March 3 vs. March 4

I don't plan to make a big issue over this, as life is simply too short for it to be worth it, but please see here for discussion of the sources reflecting that the terms ended at 12:00 noon on March 4th. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to your post on my talk. (Just mentioning because I'm not sure whether you are watching it there. Feel free to respond either here or there, whichever is easier for you.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on my talkpage (top thread), if you feel like taking a look. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Essay on congressional term expiration

Something I wrote on an interested user's talk page, copied here, to be improved later.

The question for the historian is: What do the sources say? If there are contradictory sources, who says what? Is it possible to establish what really happened? And, finally, what may one conclude? Let's apply this procedure to this case:

The Continental Congress called the 1st Congress to assemble on March 4, 1789. No other authority exists for the beginning of the term, the Constitution (before the 20th Amendment) did not mention any date, or time of day. The Constitution says that representatives should be elected every "two years". No other authority exists for the length of the term. No authority at all mentions explicitly the end/expiration of the term. Calculating two years (not two years + one day!) one arrives at a term lasting from March 4, Year, to March 3, Year + 2, considering full calendar days. This was stated as such in the Congressional Biographical Directory for about 150 years without being questioned.

Who says otherwise? A Senate resolution (as stated above) which claimed the right for the Senators to sit a little beyond midnight ("at 1 a.m."). Resolutions are not binding on anybody, except those present. Senate resolutions are not binding in any way on the House and vice-versa. The sitting members claimed unilaterally to sit until they are finished. They did so once, or possibly a few other times. This can not have any bearing on the legal term of office. A law needs three readings in either House, a constitutional amendment must be ratified by a number of States. A resolution is not even binding on the next-term Senate. It might be used as a precedent on another occasion, but the next-term Senators might just vote the other way round, it depends on the majority present.

Apparently there is evidence that, on a few occasions (2, 3??), the outgoing Congress was in session as late as noon on March 4, under a unilateral claim that they could do it.

Conclusion: The Senate or the House were sitting occasionally a few hours after the legal term seemed to have expired. Since no legal authority expressly states the end of the term, subsequent legislators, following common sense, did not find any reason to take exception to the practice. At the same time, since the original Senate and House journals always recorded the last day of the session as March 3 (even when the session lasted until a few hours after midnight) the congressional records, and the Congressional Biographical Directory stated the term as March 4 to March 3, adopting it as a convention, disregarding Sundays, and over-time hours, to avoid confusion.

The reader of an encyclopedia who reads "served in Congress from March 4 to March 3," should know that it implies, among other points, the following (perhaps to be explained in some pertinent Misplaced Pages article):

The House never assembled on March 4, the regular session began early in December, nine months later. In the meanwhile none of the members set foot in Washington DC (except in the case of earlier special sessions, on very rare occasions). Some were serving in State Legislatures, who when asked to resign on March 4 (the two offices being incompatible), said that the term would begin only when taking the seat. Resolutions (there we are again!) to this effect were passed in the New York Senate, and perhaps elsewhere.

The Senate usually held a special session on March 4, without the outgoing members, and without most of the incoming members (only representives who were elected to the Senate, and other federal employees and officeholders present in Washington DC would qualify on this day) to inaugurate the President and Vice President, or vote nominations, if a quorum was still present. Most first term Senators were not there either, until December.

The session might have lasted a few hours after midnight, and perhaps three times in 150 years until noon of March 4 in odd-numbered years, to finish the tedious proceedings of final votes on bills to be enacted. Since this was not recorded (the last recorded day being always March 3, except if it was a Sunday) it is impossible to say, in the vast majority of cases, at what hour (and date) the House or Senate really adjourned.

Final conclusion: It is unwarranted, and must be considered WP:OR, to say that all terms of Congressmen at all times before the 20th Amendment ended on March 4. Absolutely no source says so. Even the above quoted resolution of 1851 does not say so. (Please read carefully!) It says in the preamble (falsely invoking the US Constitution which is silent on the matter) that "...the session...does not expire..." (not the "term" of the Senator!). Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

John M. Diven phot

Thanks so much for the photo. I looked everywhere for one and did not have any luck. I really appreciate it. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

I saw your edit to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 1826 where you fixed my change from C. to century. I hate making mistakes like that, but I'm glad when somebody corrects me afterwards. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Estella Diggs/Mark Lane (author)

Hi-I started an article about Estella Diggs who died recently and served in the New York Assembly. You may want to expand the article. Also you may want to look at the Mark Lane (author) article. He served in the New York Assembly for one term. There was some question about how truthful Mark Lane had been about his career. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

Files missing description details

• File:EdvardHolst.jpg
• File:GuyFrancisLaking.jpg
• File:GialdinoGialdini.jpg
• File:EugeneSchmitz.jpg
• File:FranklinHall.jpg
• File:The-Old-Royal-Exchange-building.jpg
• File:Oldcap.JPG

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

Congressmen

Hi. Thank you for the information. I knew IMDB was not acceptable but was unaware of the sources you listed above. I was not able to see where the sources you mentioned were listed under WP:RS and want to make sure I am not missing any others. Would you please point out where specifically to locate this info on under WP:RS. Thank you! --BuzyBody (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the red links you mentioned above because I kept getting the disambiguation notice from the bot after I worked on an article. The bot notice referenced those specif red links removed. Should I ignore that bot notice? I really want to improve articles & want to do everything correctly. Thanks! --BuzyBody (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the disambiguation notices I have received recently but think I just got confused. If I get another disambiguation notice I am confused on, I will contact you if you do not mind.

I have made the changes you mentioned above & really appreciate your help. Do you have any guidance on sources I may check to find references for Congressional articles? I check for state historical articles and alumni articles but would appreciate any other guidance. Thank you for all you help!--BuzyBody (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Uploads

Hey, if you're 100% sure those pictures are public domain, you might as well upload 'em directly to Commons. DS (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you do have an account on Commons... and on French Misplaced Pages, and Japanese Misplaced Pages, and Hungarian Misplaced Pages, and Wikiquote, and every single WMF project. It's called unified login. And doing it directly to Commons does save a tiny bit of labor for a bot, thereby reducing the total energy consumption of Misplaced Pages by some infinitesimal amount. DS (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to help improve the upload interface, I recommend writing directly to the multimedia team, <fflorin@wikimedia.org>. Thanks. DS (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Question on Congressmen Info Boxes

Hi, You were kind enough to really help me a few months ago with editing Congressmen, and I wanted to ask another question if you do not mind. You explained that I should not add full dates in succession boxes (at the bottom) and the "years" space should only contain years. If I edit an article that already has the full dates in the succession boxes, should I change it to just show the years? Examples include Henry Tazewell and Samuel J. Randall. Thank you for your help! --BuzyBody (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question re external links. Should I remove "The Political Graveyard" as an external link if it is already there? (John E. Reyburn for example). I know you said "Find A Grave" could be used as an external link, so I know I should leave that one but was not sure re "Political Graveyard". Thanks--BuzyBody (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I edited the article for Samuel J. Randall accordingly. I am keeping notes of everything I am learning from you and studying the Misplaced Pages guidelines as well. My hope is to be a reviewer at some point. Thanks again! --BuzyBody (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding Almanac Section on Thomas Cooper (representative) and William B. Cooper

Hi, I have another question if you do not mind. I was editing the article for Thomas Cooper (representative) and noticed an almanac section on his article that includes several charts. There is a similar section on William B Cooper'S article (his brother). Would you please let me know if this should be there and if so, if I need to make any changes to it? I was thinking it was not needed but wanted to check with you. Thanks for your help!--BuzyBody (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent

It's very good to see you throw your hat into the ring. Good luck with your candidacy,  Roger Davies 00:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Kraxler, I noticed that you occasionally - yet effectively - revert vandalism. Would rollback rights be of interest to you? Please let me know what you think. Best. Acalamari 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm happy to have made the offer. :) Best. Acalamari 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your RfA opinion! Things didn't work out, But I appreciate your support! be well. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year

Happy new year to you too (and here to avoid cluttering up the RfA). Sorry if I sounded snarky, wasn't my intention. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:NYStateOfficers

Template:NYStateOfficers has been nominated for merging with Template:Current New York statewide political officials. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Int21h (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA participation

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your participation at my recent RfA, even if I couldn't sway you to support me. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. It must be difficult to evaluate people with whom you've never worked, but one of the things that was most disheartening, was hearing numerous objections over the same problems (my shortcomings with AfD process), yet very few people assuming earnestness on my part to improve or to go easy if I became an admin. Anyhow, thank you for your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Surrogate's Court

Op. 27, No. 2

I will not add to the RfA, leaving you the last word in two places. A move to the opus no. was not the question of the move request in 2012. Do you see that the article had a name from the beginning to this, with a socalled consensus of 2:1 in September 2011, restored after long discussion and to my great relief? If you think the opus no. would be a better name, go ahead, propose that, and don't forget a move request for the Fifth Symphony to Op. 67 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Gerda, the discussion was running a bit out of scope, so I'll let it go too. You could just add a short uncontroversial good-bye statement, sign it, and get the last word. I certainly won't add anything afterwards. Also, I do not intend to propose or request any moves anywhere. What should and can be moved, I move; what can't be moved, I don't. I focus on content... Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kraxler. Picking up on your comments at the RfA:

• "I'm now just curious who invented the sequential numbering of all Beethoven sonatas, and when." I don't know exactly who invented it and when, but it has been pretty standard at least since the mid 19th century. Take a look at the Moonlight's IMSLP page, which shows front sheets for a Moscheles edition of 1860 and the Breitkopf's 1862 edition in their Ludwig van Beethovens Werke: Vollständige, kritisch durchgesehene überall berechtigte Ausgabe, mit Genehmigung aller Originalverleger. You'll find these numbers in all editions sold today, I believe, as well as many recordings.
• "Beethoven himself used Opus numbers and every opus began with No. 1." OK, but even the opus numbers were assigned by his publishers, not by Beethoven. In any case, we don't need to follow Beethoven's way of referring to them. Common names arising after his death are just as valid.

Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the clarification. "In any case, we don't need to follow Beethoven's way of referring to them. Common names arising after his death are just as valid." Hear, hear. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Context

Hi there. You removed text that gave some context to the election. A younger person might not understand the context of the 1930 election. If you need a citation or re-wording, can you explain? I'd be glad to re-word it and/or to add a citation. Bearian (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)