Talk:Dean of the United States Senate
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dean vs. President Pro Tem.
editCan someone add some information or a comparison on the position of the Dean vs. the President Pro Tem? Thanks! --Daysleeper47 16:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh?
editI follow Senate/House procedure pretty closely and have detailed resources at my disposal concerning these matters. I've never ever seen "Dean of the Senate" referenced at all. Of course, the Dean of the House actually has a role but....can someone point to where "Dean of the Senate" is referenced/listed/etc? Essentially, while the article makes sense, how do I know someone just didn't make this up? JasonCNJ 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is indeed an issue. john k (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hillhouse and Tracy
editThe Congressional Biographical Directory suggests that Uriah Tracy began his service in the Senate before his colleague James Hillhouse who, while elected in May 1796, remained in the House for sometime after this, and did not begin to serve in the Senate until December of 1796, whereas Tracy's service began in October 1796. So shouldn't it be Tracy from 1805-1807, then Hillhouse 1807-1810? john k (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1862-1869
editIn this period, Ben Wade appears to be missing entirely, although he too started in 1851. But it also ignores individual dates. Foot and Bayard began service on March 4, 1851, Wade on March 15, and Sumner not until April. Thus, Foot and Bayard should be jointly it until Bayard leaves in 1864 (unless we consider Foot's house service to give him seniority over Bayard); then Foot alone until his retirement in 1866; then Wade alone until 1869; then Sumner alone until 1874. All this gives the impression that this list was compiled by someone using not particularly detailed lists, and that this may, indeed, be something made up by wikipedia. I would fix the list, but all the multiple rows makes it confusing. john k (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that there are disagreements between the "chronological list of senators" and the biographical directory. How are we to resolve such disputes? john k (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)