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 articles
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 articles
Putting the cart before the horse Biden and his position in the infobox
There is no doubt that Joe Biden is the current VP and that he is scheduled to fill this position during the next congess, but until that congress sits, officially no one has filled this position and therefore there shouldn't be any name in this spot in the infobox. As of right now, it's an empty office because there is no such thing as a 114th congress
JOJHutton 18:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Should we also delete the 67 Senators who are listed?—
GoldRingChip 20:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I was only initially concerned with the info box since it's a prominent feature of any article, but now that you bring it up, how can an article such as this say that people are serving in a Congress that doesn't exist yet. My argument is that the 114th Congress has not sat yet, so therefore nobody has filled these positions. They are "presumed" to fill these positions when the Congress sits, but these positions do not exist until that time.
JOJHutton 21:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply
You mean that you want to see a reliable source that the 114th Congress hasn't yet sat? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you saying that the 114th Congress has sat and that I'm making it up? How the hell would that violate the neutrality policy?
JOJHutton 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply
That was as civil as it gets. So can anyone explain why this article has people filling positions in a congress that does not yet exist?--
JOJHutton 13:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Because the 114th Congress WILL begin on January 3, 2015. At that time, Joe Biden will still be President of the Senate, and all those Senators will still be in office. The U.S. Senate is a continuous body that does not expire. Only an unforeseen event, such as a resignation or death, would preclude them all from service. —
GoldRingChip 03:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)reply
- The congress always exist but not the 114th congress. He has a point.
btw JOJ Hutton 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC) - Comment of the year!!! lloooolllllll — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
46.117.142.80 (
talk)
Speaker & President pro tempore.
Before adding names to the infobox. Let's wait until the House & Senate decide on these positions, in January 2015.
GoodDay (
talk) 00:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Table of totals
Can somebody please add a summary table showing how many D/R/I in the senate and house? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.115.64.208 (
talk) 01:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)reply
new chamber map with blue & red dots?
is there a chamber map with the blue & red dots made up & posted yet for the new house & senate? i need that!!! can I help?? thx
skakEL 18:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Spelling of "reelected" vs "re-elected"
Which spelling should be used: "reelected" or "re-elected"? Has this been settled on Wikipedia yet?—
GoldRingChip 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)reply
As I understand it, Wikipedia doesn't have a preference, as long as it's consistent through the article. I've taken some flack for this in FA reviews. People like the non-hyphenated, for some reason. --
Coemgenus (
talk) 18:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)reply
In my Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, the word "reelected" is definitely not hyphenated. No wonder a lot of people prefer that version! Want to know more?
Classicalfan626 (
talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I've used "re-elected" extensively throughout hundreds of election articles I've edited. That doesn't mean I'm right, it just means there would be a lot of corrections needed if it were settled the other way. I like the hyphen because it makes the word easier to read.—
GoldRingChip 13:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I've always favored "re-elected" because style guides (notably the AP) use that spelling.
-- Calidum 13:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
What is a "Major" event?
What should be included in "Major Events"? Recently, someone added:
I deleted it, thinking it wasn't "major" enough. But the original editor asserts that it is. And instead of the two of us getting into a revert war over an undefined stnadard of what is "major," I decided to bring the discussion here for consensus. —
GoldRingChip 01:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)reply
In this particular case, because of the underlying circumstances, I would consider this a "major" event, even though it's not "legislative", per se. But this one's a very unusual case, and I'm not sure most foreign leader addresses to Congress would qualify as "major" in most instances... --
IJBall (
talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree. I did not originally add this event, but I re-added it because of the circumstances. House Speaker John Boehner invited PM Netanyahu, the leader of a major U.S. ally, with absolutely no knowledge, approval, or consent from President Barack Obama. I think that this does qualify as a "legislative" event because it was the House speaker who invited Netanyahu, who in a few months will speak in front of Congress, and because this event has to do with the debate over instituting sanctions on Iran, which is currently going on in Congress. --
1990'sguy (
talk) 23:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I'd say to include it, mainly because I think these Congress articles have too few events listed. The membership, leadership, and bills passed aren't that interesting, but it's the events that provide context. The 113th article has a bunch from 2013, but none from 2014 (I just removed a few though that had nothing to do with Congress).
Reywas92Talk 20:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)reply
House composition map
Can someone upload a map showing the political party composition of the U.S. House of Representatives by individual districts for the 114th Congress? --
1990'sguy (
talk) 16:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Official Congressional photos
The articles of freshmen Congressmen
Brad Ashford,
Alex Mooney, and
Will Hurd still lack their official Congressional photos. Can someone please upload them? I am posting this here so, hopefully, more people will see my message then if I post this on each individual Congressman's article. Thanks--
1990'sguy (
talk) 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Add section: Percentage of men v. women
Basic demo breakdown would be useful on this page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.47.153.142 (
talk) 23:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Political party affiliation switches of Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders became a Democrat to run for the presidency, and he is now an independent again. So why was
this and
this removed, rather than being kept and updated to reflect him being an independent again? We should note his switching from a Democrat to and independent and back again in this article. --
1990'sguy (
talk) 01:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Good question. It is because all the official sources continued to list him as an independent:
[1] and
[2], which both list "I-VT";
[3],
[4], and
[5] which referred to him as such. Because this is an article about Congress, it is how he is recognized in Congress that matters, and there he was never recognized as a Democrat.
meamemg (
talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Demographic breakdown
It would be convenient if someone could tally the # of men and women in each branch. Extra credit for including party affiliation.
Lime in the Coconut 14:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
External links for bills
@
Beetstra: Why was this edit
reverted, please? I wasn't the previous editor who had added the links, but I think he/she was correct in placing them. —
GoldRingChip 12:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Indeed! Good catch. But… oddly enough, those links do look legit. So what do we do? Can we keep them even if they were added illegitimately? And, that makes me wonder why a sockpuppet editor would have added legit links that don't help or hurt anyone? —
GoldRingChip 17:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)reply