This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

I have nominated David Price (American politician) for move, though I have no preference, to 'congressman', 'U.S. politician', or 'North Carolina politician' (in order of simplicity). I thought it best to put a notice here so interested parties would know. Please read and comment. 75.204.179.20 ( talk) 07:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been relisted due to lack of consensus (only 1 response). Please comment so that a path forward can be chosen. 75.202.142.52 ( talk) 19:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I recently made this image to replace a PNG image. I have noticed the legend entry for Independent is a bit clunky. Originally, I had the map depict states with one Dem and one GOP as striped blue-red, but it became an eyesore (and thus I made that purple instead); however, I left one Dem, one Ind as striped. How should we deal with Independent legend entry and the whole striping thing.

Also just, so you guys know, the map is coded so that it can handle vacancies. In the case of a vacancy, a state is striped black (i.e. a given state could be blue-black, green-black, or red-black in the case of a vacancy); also in the rare case that a state has two vacancies simultaneously, it can turn the whole state black. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 08:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• What program did you use to edit the image?— GoldRingChip 11:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

EditX XML editor. It is completely text editable, so using Inkscape on this would cause problems. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:USBill#Broken for the 112th Congress. For some unknown reason, {{ USBill}} isn't working in this new Congress. — GoldRingChip 16:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})

Also commenting here. The template isn't broken. It has been returning an error because some resolutions have not been added to the THOMAS database yet. Once they are added, it will work fine. DCmacnut <> 21:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we add a list in each of the ordinal Congress articles ( 1st United States Congress… 112th United States Congress) of the committee chairs for that Congress? It seems appropriate to me.— GoldRingChip 01:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have long thought about adding committee information for each congress some time ago (I think it's in the archives) and agree with the idea in principle. The information is available from a variety of sources. But we it could get unwieldly unless we limit it somehow, such as only those ordinal congresses when they began establishing standing committess (1816 for the Senate and 1801 for the House). There were 123 Senate committees in the 1st Congress alone. Another option would be to limit it to Congresses after the adoption of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, which established the modern committee system. In 1906 there were 66 Senate committees. In 1920 there were 80. DCmacnut <> 15:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I put a question at List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service on including a section on longest serving women in Congress; comments please. 75.203.254.91 ( talk) 01:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why treaties signed by the executive branch are an appropriate subject to list in the various articles on the 5th or 36th or whatever Congress? Treaties are relevant to Congress in terms of their ratification, not their signature. It makes little sense to list Jay's Treaty in the 3rd Congress when the 3rd Congress did not discuss Jay's Treaty at all - as far as congress goes, Jay's Treaty properly belongs to the 4th Congress, doesn't it? john k ( talk) 04:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps taking it off their 'to do list', not having to override a veto, which would have required further action? 75.203.254.91 ( talk) 07:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, you've gotten it backwards - treaties are signed first by plenipotentiaries representing each party (and, in the American case, those representatives represent the president, specifically), and then ratified by the Senate afterwards. All of the laws are listed by the date they became law (i.e., date of presidential signature). The problem is that something like Jay's Treaty was signed in London in late 1794, while the third congress was still in its second session, but not actually presented to the Senate for ratification until the summer of 1795, in the special session of the 4th Congress. john k ( talk) 18:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think I was the one who added them originally. I agree with you, however, that they should be included only the ordinal Congress articles that are relevant.— GoldRingChip 14:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Party Summary template has successfully been added to all previous Congresses. I was looking for a way to help, so I started with the "to do list." Should that task be removed from the list? I'd like to be bold but I also don't want to overstep my bounds. Somanytictoc ( talk) 03:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:USCongress Party summary § Ways to help

People from a variety of WikiProjects have had concerns about the scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship with other WikiProjects. We have created an RFC and invite all interested editors to discuss it at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite frustrated by Wikipedia's apparent inability to distinguish between a proper noun and a common one or a collective one.

A proper noun is capitalized.

"Congress," for example, when the word refers to that branch of the USA's federal government comprised of the Senate and the House of Representatives, is a proper noun.

Some other germane examples of proper nouns: "Congressional District" - the area which, my local Board of Elections tells me, defines the boundary of the area the person I get to vote for, as a Representative, will represent. "Congresswoman," "Congressman," honorific titles used to describe that person elected as my Representative are also used as stand-alone proper nouns.

So, please, tell me from whence comes this - what seems to me quite improper - Wikipedia omission of capital letters on proper nouns?

Ruth-Claire ( talk) 01:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Ruth-Claire

Can you point out some specifics? In a nutshell, here are the proper capitalization rules as I understand them, based on the consensus developed by this project.

• Yes, Congress is a proper noun in all cases when referring to the U.S. Congress.
• "Congressional" as an adjective, however, is not. In the majority of cases, congressional is an adjective and not a proper noun, and therefore not subject to capitalization. It is never "Congressional" as a stand-alone word. It is congressional committee and congressional district. But it is Congressional Budget Office or the Congressional Record.
• in the case of "congressional district", obviously some choose to capitalize Congressional District when it is part of the full proper noun, as in New York's 1st Congressional District. However, lower case is also acceptable, and that is the path this project has chosen. Yet, when referring to "congressional districts" in general terms, lower case is always the proper form.
• federal is never capitalized unless part of a proper noun. It is the United States federal budget and U.S. federal government, but Federal Trade Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
• It is Congressman, Senator, or Representative when it preceeds the person's name, such as Representative John Boehner or Senator Harry Reid, but is lower case in other uses, such as "each state is represented in the U.S. Congress by two senators, and a number of representatives determined by population."

I hope this helps. Again, if you have specific examples, please share them. DCmacnut <> 16:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a rewrite of Kirsten Gillibrand and I included election boxes ({{ election box}}) for each of the elections she's been involved in. I realized they aren't appropriate for the biography, so I put them in the election articles. Then I realized there's no way to keep control of the correct, sourced boxes. Let's start a system where these boxes are templates. I'd propose, for example, Template:Election box-NY 20 2008, Template:Election box-NY 20 2008 and Template:Election box-NY Special Senate 2010. Then these pages can be watched and inserted into articles using minimal code (if use of Template space if frowned upon, we could store them as subpages of this group, doesn't matter to me). Categories will have to be made, etc., but I think it would make things better. Comments? upstate NYer 22:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I recently noticed that many if not most of the external links for House subcomittees and Senate subcommittees are broken. I suspect that this is due to URL changes as a result of the new session starting, especially with the change in ruling parties in the House. Updating all of them is too big a project for one person, so would anyone else be willing to help out updating the URL's? Antony–22 ( ^talk⁄ _contribs) 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean. They all are blue linked.— GoldRingChip 13:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the external links at the bottom of the individual subcomittee articles. Unlike wikilinks, external links are blue whether they're broken or not; you can only tell if you click on them. Antony–22 ( ^talk⁄ _contribs) 21:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been chosen as the U.S. Wikipedians Collaboration of the Month for February 2011. As a project who has identified this article to be in your scope we encourage you to edit this article and help to build it up to better explain the subject and to get it promoted. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source that lists all past committee and subcommittee assignments of members of Congress? upstate NYer 01:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've used the Congressional Quarterly Almanac for this. Each volume (example: Congressional Quarterly Almanac 93rd Congress 1st Session 1973) lists all the chairs and members of each committee, each subcommittee, and each special committee for that session of Congress. Better local libraries have many of the recent volumes, a good university library will have them going back decades. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The official Congressional Directory also has committee and subcommittee information ( for example), but the GPO website only has copies since 1997. Google Books has copies from the early 1900s. Libraries may carry the rest. — Designate ( talk) 03:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's perfect. Exactly what I needed. Incidentally, does this wikiproject host a page on 'commonly reference sources' or anything? Because I feel this should probably be included in such a list. Admittedly I didn't spend much time looking around before asking here. upstate NYer 05:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal:United States is a current featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. -- RichardF ( talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about Rick Santorum, santorum, and santorum (sexual neologism) that editors here may wish to join. Mike Christie ( talk – library) 10:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi-I started articles about people who were elected to the United States House of Representatives and never took office. There is a list about this people. I got interested in this while working on the Iowa Territory article and came across Francis Gehon who was elected to the House but never took office as a non-voting delegate because of a change in law. The talk page of the list about these people who were elected but never took office had a diccussion about whether there should be some category. Maybe, we should take a look at that one again. I also started an article about an Alabama newspaper editor [Franklin Potts Glass, Sr.]] who was appointed to a vacant US Senate seat in 1913 but never took office because of the ratification of the seventeenth ammendment to the US Constitution that had just taken place. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank yo- RFD ( talk) 13:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

At least two of the biographies on my watchlist have periodical rewrites from staffers. They volunteer their affiliation, but even so they are targeted editors. I don't really feel like getting into battles with them - they're on salary, and some of the work is necessary maintenance. But they burnish their boss's article and add PR-type claims of sponsoring bills, leading fights, opposing injustice, and funding local projects. Vandals are simple to deal with - how do we deal with staffers? They're not as clumsy as they were a few years ago.   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have no specific advise, but I suggest posting your query at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and mention specifically that you're dealing with professional boosters (perhaps akin to publicists).12:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The United States Bill of Rights article has been submitted as a possible candidate for the U.S. Collaboration of the Month. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As new congressional districts are being passed, I'd like to remind everyone not to simply remove the old ones from articles when these take effect. I saw that in a previous post here that people are including histories in the individual district articles, which is great. I suggest adding "Historical districts" sections to the state articles (e.g. New York's congressional districts), which would have discontinued maps. Thanks, Reywas92 ^Talk 19:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the Guidelines for these articles address the separate campaign articles, User:Jerzeykydd has been consistently circumventing them and labeling his edits 'cleaning up'. Here's an example. He merges the campaign material into the Congress section in an attempt to trivialize the job itself and bury the important points such as Committee assignments. This has been some campaign of his (all Senators, all Reps) to make Congress appear to be nothing more than some team sport, putting all the focus on the campaigns. As you can see, he also DELETED the link to the 2010 campaign to make it appear the article didn't exist - that's specifically addressed at the end of the Guidelines. This is not editing in good faith, imo, as this has been discussed several times and he apparently believes the consensus doesn't apply to him. All the member articles were in compliance with the Guidelines by the time of the 2010 election, and that took a great deal of my time. Since then, he has been on a personal quest to change all of them, and has reverted those I've once again restructured. This really must be addressed, as it's pointless for me to continue on this project if he's allowed to continue 'doing his own thing'. Flatterworld ( talk) 15:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges#Requested_move on moving Rod Blagojevich corruption charges → United States v. Blagojevich.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (sexual neologism)

This article has recently been expanded with additional sources and referencing improvements. There is also some ongoing discussion about that, at the article's talk page. If you are interested, please have a look at Santorum (sexual neologism) and the associated talk page discussion at Talk:Santorum (sexual neologism). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The navigational template {{ Political neologisms}} has been nominated for deletion. Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25#Template:Political_neologisms. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that a former Senate Majority Leader and Vice President of the United States should have an article rated of "low importance" by the Wikipedia U.S. Congress group. Smallchief ( talk) 09:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Then you may upgrade the rating yourself and discuss it on the talk page. Be bold!— GoldRingChip 13:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The United States Bill of Rights, an article within the scope of this project, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards by July 4th, 2011. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Santorum (neologism)

Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:New York's 9th congressional district § Voting section

WTF do the ranges mean? If it's a rep / dem share, that's pretty stupid, neither exhaustively complete (is the difference between the total and 100% spoiled ballots or what?) nor concise. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 09:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It means the stated winner got the larger number, and the next place finisher got the next number.— GoldRingChip 12:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the Presidential races are totally out of scope here, and should be deleted. Kraxler ( talk) 14:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Like in other congressional districts, this information gives some insight into the political leanings of the district. That is their scope.— GoldRingChip 15:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the political leaning can be judged from the congressional elections, and that's what the article is about: the district and the persons who represented it. Kraxler ( talk) 15:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Daniel Webster for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad ( talk) 00:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there an agreed upon order for major sections on Congressmen and Senators? I don't mean the introductory box, but I see some pages where Major Legislation and Controversies are up front, and others where they are last(ish). Campaigns might be right after "early life and career" or last, just above the nicely formatted box of results. If someone could direct me to the list of suggested sections, I would appreciate it. Senor Island ( talk) 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Senor Island, 7/5/11

There isn't one. This project isn't very active (from what I've seen), so the better articles are usually written by individuals to their own preferences. Take a look at the GAs and FAs for some of the better examples, but they don't have a consistent layout. My preference is

• Lead
• Early life/upbringing
• Early career (pre-politics or local politics)
• U.S. Representative career (or other office)
  • Lead section: Election, re-election, committee history (especially past and present chairmanships)
  • Broad area of policy, with major legislation associated with the subject
  • Broad area of policy II
  • Broad area of policy III
  • Misc. (other major issues)
• U.S. Senate career (etc.)
  • Same layout as above
• Political image or views
• Post-Congressional career or legacy
• Personal life
• Electoral history (an "appendix" so to speak—succinct table format or separate article)
• References

My preference, of course, differs from others', and it isn't set in stone. If someone's had a forty-year career it's better to break it up chronologically rather than by policy area, for example.

As you mentioned, some people like to put the campaign sections at the end of the article. This is senseless to me; I think the article should be roughly chronological, and a politician gets elected before he passes legislation. If I add an "electoral history" table, I'll put that as an "appendix", since it's big, awkward, and encompasses multiple offices. The prose about each campaign/election, however, should fit in a rough chronology, because it forms the "story" of the politician's career. That's typical of most biographies outside of Wikipedia, and I don't know what the argument is for inverting it. I try to pretend every member of Congress later became president, and how would their career be summarized? You would talk about how they first got elected and how they got where they were. You wouldn't write about their career and then leave their campaigns as a footnote.

The re-election campaign section, if there is one, can either go before or after, or you can divide the career section. There's no ideal place. But for most politicians, re-election isn't a very big story and can be summarized in a few sentences after the initial election section.

The "Congressional career" sections should focus on real legislative accomplishments, while the "Political image" section ought to focus on third-party opinions. I very much dislike long lists of policy positions, and prefer to give a general leaning on the political spectrum as defined by advocacy groups. Long campaign-style policy lists (e.g., Abortion, Illegal Immigration, Energy, etc., etc.) are next to worthless in a biography unless they're particularly noteworthy—you would never see them in a presidential biography, for example.

A "Controversies" section is usually a bad idea. Anecdotes should fit comfortably in the prose. If they look out-of-place or overwhelm the article, they should probably be reduced or left out entirely.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Hopefully you consider them reasonable. I wouldn't be comfortable with a sitewide standard since there are so many Congress articles and so few of them have gone through a review. Some individuals have tried to systematically reorganize every article, stamping a template without really contributing any content, but that usually makes people mad (it makes me mad). It's better to focus on content and let the layout fit into whatever order seems natural. There's plenty of room for everyone to try their own thing and maybe a consensus will develop over time.

Sorry to be so verbose, by the way. I've had this in the back of my head and haven't really written it down anywhere until now. — Designate ( talk) 01:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick and very good answer. I suppose the only place I differ is I prefer a Controversy section and a Major Legislation section, because those are things I personally like to find easily. I usually see Campaigns broken out, which I also like. So that's something like:

• Lead
• Early life/upbringing
• Early career (pre-politics or local politics, including other elected offices)
• Political Campaigns
  • Summary (I found too many years posted made it look bad) Senor Island ( talk) 22:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Most recent campaign
  • Current Campaign (if any)
  • Contributor Profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Island ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• U.S. Representative career (or other office)
  • Current Committee Assignments
  • Past Committee Assignments, especially chairmanships or leadership positions
  • Caucus Memberships
  • Major Legislation (if any)
  • Controversies (if any)
• U.S. Senate career (etc.)
  • Same layout as above
• Political Views (which should include at least 3 good quotes)
  • Project Vote Smart link and summary Senor Island ( talk) 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Interest Group Ratings
• Post-Congressional career or legacy (if any)
• Personal life
• Electoral history (table format)
• Works (if any)
• See also
• References
• External Links

Senor Island ( talk) 16:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is "Political Courage test link and summary"?— GoldRingChip 17:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really Project Vote Smart. It's a questionairre that most Congressmen fill out that makes their positions on most big issues of the day transparent to voters. The questionairre is known as the Political Courage Test. Beyond simply answering the questions, politicians can add their own quotes or coloring to their "standardized" answers. It is a completely neutral method for bringing a politician's political views to light, as the answers (or non-answers) are direct from the source. Senor Island ( talk) 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I took the article labeled as a "list" -- Chaplain of the United States Senate -- and have made it into what I think is a pretty good article. (I say, modestly.) Could someone take a look and change the rating from "list" to something else? Thanks! NearTheZoo ( talk) 19:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Nice job.— GoldRingChip 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much, GoldRingChip. I learned a lot doing the article! NearTheZoo ( talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is rated "list class," but I just added information which I think moves it from a "list" to an "article." Could someone take a look and consider reevaluating it? Thanks! NearTheZoo ( talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ U.S. Senator row}} , {{ Start U.S. Senator}} , {{ End U.S. Senator}} , have been nominated for deletion. These are currently unused, however, it appears that lists of US senators by state table articles use plain wikitable code instead of templatized rows. So, is it preferable to use a template or plain wikicode? 70.24.251.158 ( talk) 05:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I suggested a speedy delete. We use wikicode.13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good morning - what are the guidelines for the demographics information on congressional district pages? I updated the page for the district I live in, New York's 12th Congressional District, as the demographics have changed significantly in 10 years, but I'm not sure if we have to stick with 2000 Census data until 2010 data comes out, or if we can base it on other estimates...if anyone knows I'd be interested to find out. Thanks! Paul ( talk) 14:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Welcome! Generally, we try to keep the historical perspective for most/all articles. Thus, I recommend adding information as demographics change. Do not remove the old information, but instead, write how it's changed from one census to the next.— GoldRingChip 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)